- From: Kirmse, Daniel <daniel.kirmse@sap.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:23:19 +0100
- To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: Kirmse, Daniel Sent: Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2002 17:19 To: 'Clemm, Geoff' Subject: RE: Problems with Delete of a version-controlled collection >-----Original Message----- >From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com] >Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Januar 2002 17:50 >To: Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail) >Subject: RE: Problems with Delete of a version-controlled collection > > > > 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. ----> So the VCR of /foo/bar is still gone (even so the VCR of /foo/bar/foobar.c) but the version-hsitory of it would contain a new version created by the last checkin. Hmmm. What if the deleted VCR was the last one pointing to this version-history? Is there a way of creating a new VCR pointing to a existing VH? Rolling back the delete would be an option too, I think. ---> > > 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 Thursday, 17 January 2002 11:24:01 UTC