Re: How to supply an activity for VERSION-CONTROL?

Steve,

To be precise, an activity selects a set of resources, it does not track
the methods applied to the resources.
That is to say, while it may be a convenient short-hand to add a
DAV:activity to VERSION-CONTROL it is not capturing the fact that 'a
versionable resource was version controlled', but rather 'this version is
associated with this activity'.

In fact, my answer would have been that you should PROPPATCH the
DAV:activity-set property of the root version created by the
VERSION-CONTROL -- but I do not object to the shorthand extension to the
VERSION-CONTROL method.

Using activities to track changes to a resource requires that you
reconstruct the changes that took place based on the set of resources
captured by the activity.

Regards,

Tim Ellison
Java Technology Centre, MP146
IBM UK Laboratory, Hursley Park, Winchester, UK. SO21 2JN
tel: +44 (0)1962 819872  internal: 249872  MOBx: 270452


|--------+------------------------>
|        |          "Steve K      |
|        |          Speicher"     |
|        |          <sspeiche@us.i|
|        |          bm.com>       |
|        |                        |
|        |          2001-03-06    |
|        |          03:28 PM      |
|        |          Please respond|
|        |          to "Steve K   |
|        |          Speicher"     |
|        |                        |
|--------+------------------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                    |
  |      To:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org                            |
  |      cc:                                                           |
  |      Subject:     Re: How to supply an activity for                |
  |       VERSION-CONTROL?                                             |
  |                                                                    |
  |                                                                    |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------|






Jim,
It would seem that if someone would want to track all the changes for a
given activity, that the initial version would be part of those tracked
changes.  I would think it would be a problem for someone who would want to
see what the "reason" was to bring the activity into existence.   The
figure in section 11 shows the resource "foo.html" with version "V1"
associated with activity "Act-1".  How is it possible to have this
situation if VERSION-CONTROL doesn't accept the DAV:activity property as
described by Geoff?

It seems that in order to maintain the integrity of controlled resources, a
server may want to restrict a given namespace to require an activity on all
updates.  Why shouldn't the protocol support this?  I realize that this
could render many non-activity aware clients useless.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
sspeiche@us.ibm.com

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 11:25:55 UTC