- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:20:48 -0800
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:58:54PM -0800, Fay, Chuck wrote: >... > I view retention policy as a workaround or band-aid to the real problem, > which is not giving core versioning clients an obvious, clean, safe way to > check in a new version explicitly. Auto-versioning is great for backward > compatibility, but it's not real versioning in the classical sense of > checkout, change, checkin. LOCK, PUT, UNLOCK is error-prone, in that > clients will have to know not to do more than one PUT (for servers that > don't support storage of intermediate state), to avoid the proliferating > versions trap. With the alternative, i.e., CHECKOUT/CHECKIN methods, it's > obvious to the developer that you only get to do one CHECKIN call per > CHECKOUT. The client just has to check to see if the mutable VCR option is > supported. If so, it can do intermediate PUTS; if not, it saves all changes > for the CHECKIN method. How can we deny the core versioning client access > to CHECKOUT/CHECKIN methods? You are not suggesting anything new. If the client can avoid intermediate PUTs, with the intent of sending it during the CHECKIN, then the client can/should just use a single PUT (with or without locking or checkin/out). There is no reason to add complexity to the core protocol to support a trivial (the name of the method that delivers the content) change in the client. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 21:19:24 UTC