RE: FW: DeltaV doesn't support a true client workspace

I agree that the duplication of PUT functionality is the
primary objection.

Cheers,
Geoff

p.s. But I don't agree that a secondary
objection concerning the undesireability of using headers
as a method argument extension mechanism is either a
red herring or "unprincipled" (:-).

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:54 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: DeltaV doesn't support a true client workspace


Marshalling difficulty is a red herring here, and avoids the real issues
concerning the semantics of CHECKIN.

I think the principled answer is that CHECKIN with body duplicates the
functionality of PUT, and this is a bad design.

- Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 8:19 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: DeltaV doesn't support a true client workspace
>
>
>
>    From: "Fay, Chuck" <CFay@filenet.com>
>
>    ...
>
>    CHECKIN /foo.html (with new content in the request body)
>
>    I don't see why there should any big objection to this
> proposal, except on
>    religious grounds that any real versioning server *must* provide
>    intermediate storage of working versions.
>
> I raised the (non-religious :-) objection in my previous response that
> this requires that every argument for the CHECKIN request be a new
> header.  I consider this completely unacceptable, since unlike XML
> elements, headers are in a single global namespace so it would be
> infeasible for a server to safely extend the CHECKIN request.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>

Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 07:21:04 UTC