- From: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:29:26 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
On Nov 28, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > Note that versioning servers without working copies often still > require a checkout/checkin protocol. > The "checkout" method is used as a notification to other users that > this client is working on that resource. > The "checkin" method is used to tell the server "I want you to > create a new version with the current content" (while a PUT just > updates the current content without creating a new version). In this case, checkout/checkin is also orthogonal to the notion of versioning and would not need to be mentioned in the spec. IOW, the only reason mentioning checkin/checkout in the spec is because the definition of working copy depends on it. Jan > > Cheers, > Geoff > > Jan Algermissen wrote on 11/27/2009 12:13:27 PM: > > ... > > I think the notion of versioning is orthogonal to the notion of > > checkout/checkin and the draft seems to be centered around it. If a > > resource is being versioned by the server, all relations make sense, > > except working-copy. Only for working-copy you need to introduce > > checkin/checkout. It is just another means putting the versioning > > 'action' in the hands of the client. > > > > (But please takte this only as input - the draft just triggered an > > analysis process and that keeps going :-) > > I cannot judge if it is significant enough to justify work on the > > draft or even this exchange... > > > -------------------------------------- Jan Algermissen Mail: algermissen@acm.org Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/ Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com --------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 28 November 2009 08:30:16 UTC