- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:40:38 -0700
- To: "DeltaV" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I used to think I understood what the auto checkin/checkout stuff did, and meant. Now I think I don't. The latest changes to that section of the spec (might have been a while ago) actually made it harder to handle. 1. If I read the definition of auto-checkout, it's pretty clear the checkout is triggered by a modification request, but whether the trigger happens is dependent on the _state_ of the resource. Thus "unlocked-update" means "if the resource is unlocked when the trigger event happens, do a checkout". But then the definition of auto-checkin is not the same. I would have thought "unlocked-update" meant "when the resource is unlocked do a checkin", but that's different than the definition of auto-checkout. At any rate, whether the tags mean the same thing in both properties is one problem, but what both tags mean for auto-checkin is the real problem. The missing piece of information for auto-checkin is what requests TRIGGER the auto-checkin behaviour. 2. Is it really reasonable for a server to have unlocked-update, but NOT locked-update? Currently the spec allows either value, both or neither. This is a total of four states the client must understand. One can be eliminated. 3. Is it really reasonable for a server to have auto-checkin behaviour but no auto-checkout behaviour? E.g. have a auto-checkin with "unlocked-update" but auto-checkout shows nothing? If it's not reasonable, then 3 additional states can be eliminated without the client having to worry about them. On the whole, I preferred the automatic checkin/checkout stuff the way I remember it - there was less combinatorial confusion, there were no unreasonable settings, and the explanations were clearer. Lisa
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 00:40:46 UTC