AW: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resources

"Manfred Baedke" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.deltav
Message-ID <[email protected]>
RE: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resourcesThis is true, but it does not
apply to the more general case of an UPDATE
of a version.controlled collection containing a checked-out resource which
is not identified
by the DAV:version-controlled-binding-set of the update source.

Cheers, Manfred
  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
  Von: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]Im Auftrag von Clemm, Geoff T
  Gesendet: Freitag, 27. September 2002 14:00
  An: [email protected]
  Betreff: RE: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resources


  I agree with your conclusion, but I believe this follows from
  the DAV:no-overwrite-by-auto-update precondition for CHECKIN, i.e.:

   If the DAV:auto-update property for the checked-out resource
   identifies a version-controlled resource, at least one of the
   versions identified by the DAV:predecessor-set property of the
   checked-out resource MUST identify a version that is either the same
   as or a descendant of the version identified by the DAV:checked-in
   property of that version-controlled resource.

  If the VCR is checked-out, there is no DAV:checked-in version,
  which means this precondition would not be satisfied.

  Cheers,
  Geoff



  -----Original Message-----
  From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:[email protected]]
  Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:48 AM
  To: Clemm, Geoff
  Cc: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resources



  While we're at this topic: we have a similar issue with auto-update of
  version controlled collections.

  - checkout a versioned collection with apply-to-version
  - remove a member from the working collection
  - checkout in-place the member of the versioned controlled collection
  - checkin the working collection

  -> the version controlled collection should be updated an remove
     the binding to the checked-out resource.

  I think the checkin should fail in this case, as the removal of
  a checked-out member might cannot be permitted.

  Do you agree?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.