Re: UPDATE method and forking

I would call this an implementation detail, and definitely not call
it a bug.  All it means is that working resources have more properties
in your system than the standard requires.

Also, since that is exactly what we would have done if we had
supported working resources on our workspace-based server (basically,
just allocating the working resources in some system-maintained
workspace), I consider it a very sensible implementation choice (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff


Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de> wrote on 03/17/2006 03:44:37 
PM:

> Geoff,
> 
> again you are right.
> The reason for my confusion is that in our implementation (i.e. SAP 
> Netweaver) a working resource _is_ a version controlled resource. I will 

> have to meditate about this being a bug or just an implementation 
detail.
> 
> Regards,
> Manfred
> 
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> > 
> > Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de> wrote on 03/17/2006 
> > 11:34:14 AM:
> > 
> >  > My point was that the working resource itself is a VCR, whose 
deletion
> >  > on a subsequent CHECKIN can be avoided using the 
DAV:keep-checked-out
> >  > flag, in which case the working resource behaves much like any 
other 
> > VCR.
> > 
> > Well, to be precise, a working resource is a "checked-out resource".
> > A checked-out VCR is also a checked-out resource,
> > but although both a working resource and a checked-out VCR share 
properties
> > and methods (i.e., all the properties and methods of a checked-out 
> > resource),
> > a working resource is actually not a VCR (in particular, a VCR has 
> > properties
> > that a working resource does not have).
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> > 
> > 
> > 
>