Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Re: workspaces and configurations"
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003161422.JAA03311@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: workspaces and configurations
Upon re-reading my post, it occurs to me that I may have made this
a bit more obscure than it had to be. So I'll try a revised version:
If we remove "dynamic version selection via RSR" functionality from
workspaces, then a workspace resource and a configuration resource
have identical semantics, except that a workspace can select both
revisions and working resources, while a configuration can only select
revisions.
We can simplify the protocol by just saying that we will only use the
more general construct, i.e. a resource that can select both revisions
and working resources. Currently, we call this resource "a workspace",
so the simplest change is to just say "we no longer need configuration
resources".
Alternatively, we could say "we will generalize the configuration resource
to allow it to select working resources, and then we no longer need a workspace
resource."
Semantically, these two choices are identical, with the only difference
being terminological, i.e. do we keep the terminology the same and just
recognize that the configuration concept is now redundant, or do we change
our terminology and use the term "configuration" for what we used to call
a "workspace".
If I *had* to pick, I'd probably just keep calling it a workspace, and
drop the term configuration (for continuity, and because "configuration"
is probably a somewhat more obscure and technical term). But I'm happy
to go either way, so if anyone has a strong preference, please let me know.
Whether we call it a "workspace" or a "configuration", it should be a
versionable (but not necessarily versioned) resource, and I suggest
that we continue to use the term "baseline" for a "checked-in
workspace/configuration".
Cheers,
Geoff
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:09:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@Rational.Com>
One point I neglected to add to the minutes from this week's conference
call was Henry's suggestion that if we were removing the "dynamic" behavior
from workspaces, why not unify the concept of workspaces and configurations?
After some reflection, it appears to me that it makes good sense to
model the new "stable" workspace object as simply a checked-out
configuration, i.e. a "working configuration". This not only unifies
the concept of workspaces and configurations, but also unifies the
notion of baselines and configurations (a baseline is the "checked in
state of a workspace", and in this simplified model, all checked-in
configurations will by definition always be the checked in state of a
workspace).
Unless there are objections, I will include this unification in the
"stable workspace" proposal I'm working up.
Cheers,
Geoff