- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:12:33 -0400
- To: "'DeltaV (E-mail)'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net] You say that your implementation makes it hard to make CHECKIN/UPDATE atomic. On my system, they are naturally atomic. That is why I want the atomic operation offered. It might be easier if you reversed the nomenclature. If instead of CHECKIN/UDPATE you thought in terms of UPDATE/CHECKIN the problems would probably fall out. OK, I'm a dufus (:-). Yes, on my system at least, if you do the "update" part first (for my system, an in-place checkout, followed by a PUT/PROPPATCH), then you can easily roll-back if the CHECKIN fails (by just doing an UNCHECKOUT). So I retract my concern that an "atomic CHECKIN/UPDATE" would be a problem to implement (for us, at least). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 15:13:05 UTC