- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:49:50 -0500
- To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
From: Kirmse, Daniel [mailto:daniel.kirmse@sap.com]
suppose this:
/foo
|
+- /bar
|
+- foobar.c
all the resources are under version-control. Now suppose this
sequence of requests:
CHECKOUT /foo/bar
DAV:apply-to-version
(working-collection: /wc/wc1 auto-update: /foo/bar)
CHECKOUT /foo
DAV:apply-to-version
(working-collection: /wc/wc2, auto-update: /foo)
delete folder /foo/bar:
DELETE /wc/wc2/bar
or is it done via the real VCR? I hope not! The DELETE should be hidden
until checkin!
You are correct. The DELETE should be done to the working collection,
as you show here.
CHECKIN /wc/wc2
(applied to /foo -> the folder /bar and all its content is gone)
CHECKIN /wc/wc1
(must fail because the VCR the auto-update should go to is gone)
That depends on the server. A server could just delete the
auto-update property when the VCR referenced by that property
is deleted, and allow the CHECKIN of /wc/wc1 to succeed.
You haven't really "lost" anything, because this version is
now available in the version history that is associated with
/wc/wc1.
Questions:
1. Is this right?
2. If yes: Shouldn't the deletion be prevented or fail because a
subfolder
is checked out and therefore some kind of "locked"?
A server certainly could fail the CHECKIN of /wc/wc2 for this reason,
but that would have to be a server-defined precondition (i.e. this
CHECKIN is not forbidden by any of the standard preconditions).
Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 11:50:54 UTC