Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Re: Questions on activities"
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:22:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200003292322.SAA22256@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebDAV Versioning Scenarios
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
<gmc/> So as cool as dynamic revision selection is, I believe
we should excercise self-restraint and commit to static
revision selection for the first version of the versioning
protocol. Once that is widely implemented, and implementors
are just dying to do something more challenging (:-), I'd be
happy to consider adding in dynamic revision selection.
<sankar/> I second Geoff's observation. It also reduces the
implementors need to introduce new administrative mechanisms to
manage rules, etc.
<jamsden/> No. I think we still need the revision selection rule to
determine what revisions are selected on workspace refresh, and to
indicate what was used on the last refresh as an indicator of
what's in the workspace. Note that if the revision selection rule
only contain configurations, it never needs to be refreshed. These
are "production" workspaces.
There are benefits to such a declarative rule (you have a high level
description of "what is in your workspace"), but it comes at a cost.
For example, consider newly checked in resources. With a revision
selection rule, we had to introduce mechanisms like the
DAV:current-revision and DAV:current-label so that newly checked in
resources didn't disappear from the workspace (and the user
or client had to make sure to update the revision selection
rule whenever either DAV:current-revision or DAV:current-label
was changed).
So although I agree that it is worth standardizing on the name
of that property, I don't think we should require that it be the
only way of updating the revision selection of a workspace.
Cheers,
Geoff