RE: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header

I see.

So:

depth = 0: the REPORT affects just the request URI, but as the report itself is defined to have "colllection member scope", this will return all direct members of the collection at the request URI having matching version histories?

depth = 1: also includes collections that are members of the collection at the request URI.

..

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:14 AM
> To: Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org
> Subject: RE: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header
> 
> 
> The locate-by-history report logically runs against the entire 
> configuration
> rooted at the request-URL.  So in that sense, it is a "depth:infinity"
> operation.
> But that isn't how REPORT is defined.  REPORT is defined as "being run
> separately
> against every resource that satisfies the depth parameter".  
> Depth:1 says to
> "run the request against the resource identified by the request-URL,
> and then again on each of the internal members of the request-URL."
> But that is never what you want, because you only want the REPORT run once
> against
> the configuration identified by the request-URL.
> 
> And that one case where I said that Depth:1 might make sense was 
> just wrong.
> You still run Depth:0 (i.e. just run the REPORT once), and the REPORT will
> find all VCR's that match that version history in any of the workspaces.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:42 PM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org
> Subject: RE: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header
> 
> 
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 9:49 PM
> > To: Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org
> > Subject: RE: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header
> > 
> > 
> > Actually, the report clearly makes the most sense for depth=0 (perhaps
> > that's what you
> > meant to type?).
> 
> You managed to confuse me :-) It the request URI is the parent collection,
> and the scope is the member of this collection, only depth = 1 
> seems to make
> sense. Depth 0's scope would be just the parent collection, correct?
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 06:57:00 UTC