Antwort: RE: Problems with Windows XP "redirector" and Mac OS X WebDAVFS.

Hi Stefan,
why are you so pessimistic ?
I would assume that most "safe save" algorithms will have a recognizable
pattern
like MOVE a -> b, PUT a, DELETE b.
So a clever autoversioning server could assume that b was a temporary file
which
can be thrown away (Also deleting the autoversioned history) and
autoversion a.
Or is this assuming too much and the behaviour can also be expected in the
wild
by a DeltaV client ?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Edgar Schwarz

--
Edgar.Schwarz@marconi.com, Postf. 1920, D-71509 Backnang,+49 7191 13 3382,
Marconi Communications, Access Division, Quality and Process Improvement
Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos ansehen wie er mag
(Niklaus Wirth). Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler
(A.Einstein)




                                                                                                                                 
                          "Clemm, Geoff"                                                                                         
                          <gclemm@rational.c        An:    "'ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>           
                          om>                       Kopie:                                                                       
                          Gesendet von:             Blindkopie:                                                                  
                          ietf-dav-versionin        Thema: RE: Problems with Windows XP "redirector" and Mac OS X WebDAVFS.      
                          g-request@w3.org                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 
                          26.04.2002 05:00                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 




If the client first does a MOVE, then I agree there's not
much an auto-versioning server could reasonably do.

Just for interests sake, what is the motivation for
those libraries to do a <MOVE-to-temp1, PUT-to-temp2,
MOVE-to-real, DELETE-temp1> instead of the simpler
<PUT-to-temp, MOVE-temp-to-actual> ?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]

Am Mittwoch den, 24. April 2002, um 14:49, schrieb Clemm, Geoff:

> One workaround that comes to mind is to interpret a MOVE from a
> non-version-controlled resource to a checked-out VCR as a COPY/DELETE.

First the good news: if you have a shell on OSX and do a
cp test.txt to /Volumes/dav/test.txt
where "dav" is a WebDAV mounted volumes, the webdav code
in OSX does basically a LOCK/PUT/UNLOCK on an existing
test.txt. So (auto)versioning will do the job.

However if you use the Finder or any Carbon/Cocoa Application,
some library code will do (on save in the GUI):
1) MOVE /Volumes/dav/test.txt /Volumes/dav/test~.txt
2) PUT  /Volumes/dav/data1234.txt
3) MOVE /Volumes/dav/data1234.txt /Volumes/dav/test.txt
4) DELETE /Volumes/dav/test~.txt

(modulo LOCK/UNLOCK)

I see no chance to keep any versioning on text.txt.

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 07:06:48 UTC