Re (2): Basic resource lifecycle: a proposal for "mutable versions"

Hi Geoff,
I'm very confused. Either you misunderstood something
or you must explain it in more detail because I don't understand the
connections between my post and most of your reply. Could you check
whether there are any typos in your use of "ismutable" and "immutable" ?

> Edgar's proposal is basically to keep the current "mutable version"
> semantics, but to require that once "ismutable" is set to "true",
> it cannot be set back to "false".
I would still say it's more but only if you exchange "true" and "false".

> mutable versions.  I believe that any sensible server will refuse
> to let you set the "immutable" flag on any version with a human
> meaningful name, since over time, this would result in the limited
> number of human meaningful names being "used up" by immutable
> version URL's.
I don't understand. I don't want to make a "human meaningful name"
immutable. I just want to make a version immutable. I didn't want to
say anything about the topic of meaningful names. That's another matter.
Why do you think my proposal would use up version URL's ?
Is this different from when all versions are "immutable" like when you
don't allow mutable versions ?

> The key point here is that a "stable name" is incompatible with a
> "human meaningful name", so any attempt to unify "resources with
> stable names" and "resources with human meaningful names" will
> never succeed.
I didn't think I was talking about what you seem to understand,
please elaborate.

> So it is unlikely that anybody was ever going to support the
> "ismutable" transition from "false" to "true" anyway.
Fine with me. That's forbidden.

BTW, my goal was to add limited mutability to core versioning while
keeping the stability of versions which is the key concept for
baselines and reproducability.

Cheers, Edgar


-- 
edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
*          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Native Oberon.         *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2001 16:54:15 UTC