- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:22:04 -0400
- To: DeltaV <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I agree with Lisa's argument that some servers will want to implement quota services. I just want to keep the quota services and policies orthogonal from the versioning services. So how about the following: I just delete the non-normative text concerning version deletion from the "how to remove a resource from version control" sentence. This then allows Lisa's servers to do all the version deletion it wants without violating anything in the protocol. (Just goes to show you how much trouble you can get into from an apparently innocuous "explanation" added to the text of the protocol ... although this is nothing compared to the "move is a copy followed by a delete" debacle :-). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 3:00 PM To: Jim Whitehead; DeltaV Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies? Jim said: > John, Lisa: Let me note that one of the foundations of your argument in > favor of this capability is an indirect appeal to authority, namely the > authority of your users/customers. Now, you almost certainly cannot (or > don't want to) reveal the market research that led to your position. But, > let me note that when you (or anyone else on the list) make this kind of > argument, you have a responsibility to ensure that you have, in fact done > due diligence when reflecting your customer's requirements. I thought it would be more informative to say that customers wanted it, rather than to say that Xythos developers thought it would be "a good idea". An appeal to (customer) authority can be an even stronger argument than simply personal experience or educated guesses, particularly in this case where Geoff asked for "use cases". Who can do a better job of providing use cases than the customer? But I accept the due diligence point. Let me give a use case that's entirely non-opaque, where I can give full details, and where the due-diligence is automatic. The site www.sharemation.com uses quotas. We couldn't afford to run this free service without quotas, and note that usage numbers count both regular resources and stored versions. We also couldn't run this quota-based service without allowing users to free up their quotas. So here's the problem scenario on Sharemation: user 'scrooge' turns on versioning on /~scrooge/foo.txt through the UI or through a hypothetical DeltaV client. Then Scrooge uses Web Folders one day to delete a bunch of stuff. Web Folders issues a plain DELETE, possibly even issuing DELETE on entire collections. Once Web Folders' DELETE is issued, Scrooge would have no way of finding or cleaning out old versions or version history resources that still are counted under his quota. Scrooge's quota would soon be unusable. This use case applies to any situation where quotas are needed. Just a few: - A university provides web storage and collaboration space to its students and professors. It limits this space (quotas) in order to discourage improper use. - A ISP offers web site hosting to its customers, on a fee-based service. Customers pay for their quota. - XDrive, IDrive etc. - all these free hosting services (some of which supported Web Folders) restricted quota. Lisa
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 17:22:42 UTC