- From: <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:28:50 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com] [Daniel said:] >For COPY I'd expect to got a new VCR at the destination with an >exact copy of properties. This implies that the new created VCR >must share the version-history with the source VCR. Is this >correct? Is this desirable? I think this is desirable and correct but with one caveat... Well, one can debate whether or not it is desirable, but it definitely is not correct. COPY does not create a new VCR, unless the server automatically puts all new resources under version control, and in that case, a new version history will be created for it. Both in section 1.3 (where the workspace term is defined) and in section 6 the DeltaV specification says that you can only have one VCR for a given version history in a workspace. If copy created a new VCR but pointed to the original VHR then this rule could be violated if the destination is in the same workspace as the source of the copy. If the copy does not break this rule then it would be fine to have two VCRs pointing to the same version history. Yes, but you need to use the VERSION-CONTROl request (identifying a version) to make this be the case, not a COPY. I certainly wouldn't have thought that moving a VCR would create a new history resource. That is correct. A MOVE is very different from a COPY, since it effectively just renames the resource, but otherwise leaves it unmodified. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 12:30:06 UTC