RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?

"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:

> Add a new postcondition to DELETE that says:
>
> "If a server does not support the version-history feature,
> then it MAY automatically delete a version resource if that
> version no longer appears in the DAV:version-tree report
> of any version-controlled resource."

I can support this postcondition, and encourage John and Lisa to read it
carefully to ensure it satisfies their requirements.

> I believe this allows John and Lisa to do what they want,
> without violating the concern of several of us that
> a client should be able to count on a version being
> preserved by a server while it is still being referenced
> by another resource visible on the server.

I turned my back for one day...and there was a flood of messages to the
list!  After following the arguments (any my blood pressure rising and
falling numerous times) this is a reasonable outcome.

> I believe this approach is better than adding a body
> to DELETE, because it does not require adding additional
> protocol elements.

Agreed.

Tim

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 05:04:40 UTC