- 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