- From: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 07:56:39 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
As an introduction, what I want to be able to do with DeltaV. Structuring Software with Components and it's Implementation in DeltaV ---------------------------------------------------------------------- At first there is the model: A Software project is a component (To take the term which is used in Chapter 12 on BASELINE-CONTROL) consisting of resources. For big Software projects it makes sense to break up the set of resources into a set of smaller components (This also allows reuse of components in other projects). The whole project now consists of a (possibly empty) set of resources and a (possibly empty) set of subcomponents. The resources of a component also can be structured in groups belonging together logically. That's in short what I had in my mind in the past when I was argueing for subbaselines. Then comes the view provided by DeltaV: A component is mapped to a baseline-controlled collection and called 'Configuration'. It's resources are mapped to members of this collection. Component internal member structuring is mapped to additional collections contained in the baseline-controlled collection. A component version is called a 'Baseline'. Subcomponents are also mapped to baseline-controlled collections (configurations) of this view. Subcomponent property is implemented by adding the configuration to the subbaseline-set property of it's 'master' configuration. BTW, I expect subbaselines to be restored to the same relative path concerning the baseline like when the baseline was created. There should be the necessary properties to guarantee this. "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote: > Edgar@edgarschwarz.de schrieb: > If /x/y is the root collection of another configuration it doesn't > belong to /x and if it also isn't a subbaseline of /x it must not > be created when /x is extracted in a new workspace. > > It is important to distinguish between what the protocol does not > require the server to do, and what it requires the server not to do. Right. > If your server supports baselines but not versioned collections, then > it is not required to create /ws/kk/x/y when /repo/bl/22 is merged > into /ws/kk, but it may do so. Why should this be allowed ? A baseline "... captures the state of each version controlled member of a configuration.". So /ws/kk/x/y isn't captured in the baseline and I see no reason to restore it. > If your server supports baselines and versioned collectios, then it MUST create > /ws/kk/x/y when /repo/bl/22 is merged into /ws/kk. Again ! Why should this be required ? /ws/kk/x/y wasn't captured in the baseline, so there is no information how to restore it. In your agenda BASELINE-CONTROL is giving different results depending on another 'competing' feature being supported or not. This shouldn't be. Do you see why I have problems ? Perhaps you have a different model than me :-) then please explain it. Cheers, Edgar. -- edgar@edgarschwarz.de http://www.edgarschwarz.de * DOSenfreie Zone. Running Active Oberon. * Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 07:56:40 UTC