RE: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resources

Apologies, I misread the original message (i.e. the issue is the
checkout of a member of the collection, not a checkout of the
collection).

This is just one way in which you can delete a checked-out VCR, and
currently, deleting a checked-out VCR is allowed by the protocol.

Stefan: Were you suggesting that it be disallowed just in this case,
or disallowed in general (e.g. add it as a precondition to the DELETE
method).

For now, I'll just add this to the Errata document as an open issue,
since disallowing deletion of a checked-out VCR would be a change
to the protocol semantics.

So, to get some initial feedback, who thinks we should disallow the
deletion of a checked-out VCR?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Manfred Baedke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:21 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; [email protected]
Subject: AW: UPDATE semantics for checked-out resources


This 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?