Re: Auto version for workspaces

From: Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Date: Fri, Feb 18 2000

  • Next message: Jim Whitehead: "RE: Labels"

    From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
    Message-ID: <2000Feb18.113100.1250.1480789@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
    Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:33:16 -0500
    Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces
    
    
    My original request was that the ability to auto-version workspaces (or, by 
    your suggestion, servers) *is* part of the protocol spec, and not left for 
    "some admin mechanism".  I think this is an important piece of functionality 
    to include to achieve interop with down-level clients.
    
    Since there is no 'server' resource, I suggested workspace, though it could 
    also be repository, or collection (as per Eric's suggestion).
    
    Tim
     ----------
    >From: jamsden
    >To: ietf-dav-versioning
    >Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces
    >Date: Friday, February 18, 2000 11:22AM
    >
    >The server default would be set by some admin mechanism not covered by
    >WebDAV. It would be obtained through OPTIONS like other server
    >characteristics.
    >
    >
    >|--------+----------------------->
    >|        |          Tim_Ellison@o|
    >|        |          ti.com (Tim  |
    >|        |          Ellison OTT) |
    >|        |                       |
    >|        |          02/18/2000   |
    >|        |          09:17 AM     |
    >|        |                       |
    >|--------+----------------------->
    >  >-----------------------------------------------------------------|
    >  |                                                                 |
    >  |       To:     Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS                      |
    >  |       cc:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V')            |
    >  |       Subject:     Re: Auto version for workspaces              |
    >  >-----------------------------------------------------------------|
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Hmm, by your logic then the server is a resource :-)
    >
    >Where would that server default be set?
    >
    >Tim
    > ----------
    >>From: jamsden
    >>To: Tim Ellison (OTT)
    >>Cc: 'Delta V'; ietf-dav-versioning-request
    >>Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces
    >>Date: Thursday, February 17, 2000 6:42PM
    >>
    >>Creating a new revision is an operation on a versioned resource, not a
    >>workspace. So auto versioning should be an attribute of a versioned
    >>resource, not a workspace, which is not even versionable. Auto versioning
    >>should be a server default with override on a per versioned resource
    >basis.
    >>This gets you what you want while keeping the state information with the
    >>correct object.
    >>
    >>
    >>|--------+---------------------------------->
    >>|        |          Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim|
    >>|        |          Ellison OTT)            |
    >>|        |          Sent by:                |
    >>|        |          ietf-dav-versioning-requ|
    >>|        |          est@w3.org              |
    >>|        |                                  |
    >>|        |                                  |
    >>|        |          02/16/00 05:11 PM       |
    >>|        |                                  |
    >>|--------+---------------------------------->
    >>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >>  |                                                                   |
    >>  |       To:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V')              |
    >>  |       cc:                                                         |
    >>  |       Subject:     Auto version for workspaces                    |
    >>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------|
    >>
    >>
    >>I think it would be a fine thing if workspaces had an auto version
    >property
    >>(along the lines of the resource property) that indicated that all
    >>resources
    >>PUT through that workspace were auto-versioned.  This would allow
    >>down-level
    >>clients to interact on a level playing field, rather than relying on their
    >>versioning chums to set the flag on a per resource basis.
    >>
    >>If I were Geoff, I'd say that I'll add it to the spec unless anyone
    >>complains :-)
    >>
    >>Tim
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >