- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:17:56 -0800
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Per the other note (with the slightly modified semantics), I'm totally fine with this change. I just have a few nits to close up below. On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:22:10PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: >... > From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:19:43PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > > From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> > > > > Just verifying an assumption... > > > > A baseline is a version resource, which would suggest that I can do a > > CHECKOUT on that resource, modify it, then check it back in. > > > > Well, you could, but it wouldn't do you much good because because you > > wouldn't be able to modify the DAV:version-set (it does not appear > > on a working resource). >... > Why not? :-) Below, you state that the protected status is based on what > resource the property appears on. Why couldn't we say the version-set > property appears on a baseline's working resource as an unprotected > property? > > We could do that, but I don't think we have to (i.e. we can just let > MERGE do its magic, and have the DAV:version-set be based on the > DAV:checked-in versions of the baselined collection, as usual. While I don't need the modify-DAV:version-set behavior, I think it would be more consistent to allow somebody to modify a baseline in this way. You could call me "neutral" on this, tending towards "add it for consistency." >... > I believe the real question is: are there multiple ways of defining > the DAV:version-set of a baseline, or a single uniform way? My > concern with having different ways of defining the DAV:version-set is > that a server is likely to support just one or the other, which would > mean clients would either have to try it each way to work against both > kinds of server, or a client would only work against one kind of > server. I understand. I'll slightly argue that consistency dictates that somebody could do: CHECKOUT /some/baseline PROPPATCH version-set=[...] CHECKIN /the/working/resource Just like they can do with any other version resource. > Since "collections" are the standard WebDAV way of grouping together a > set of resources, it seems natural to derive a baseline from that > standard way of grouping resources. If in addition, we started > defining ways of directly manipulating the DAV:version-set, we would > soon be faced with many of the incremental update issues that collections > currently address. Incremental update? I'm thinking of a single PROPPATCH. I'm not sure that I understand your concern here. > If the solution described in the "summary" gives you what you need, > we would be able to stick with the "unified baseline creation model". It does; I'm just thinking about other users. For example, I won't use CHECKIN on an activity, but I think it is an entirely valid concept. If somebody out there wants to champion it... otherwise, I'm going to guess that Geoff won't want to add this :-) >... > These are some of the reasons why I have always felt it to be > essential that versioning not depend on locking. So please forget I > ever brought up the baseline selector locking suggestion (:-). Forget what? I don't recall what you're talking about. :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 05:18:33 UTC