Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

Jan,

here's my proposal for the checkin/checkout issue you raised (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-issues.html#issue.checked-out>):

1) Do not specify *how* to checkin/checkout; this really depends on the 
protocol, and might not be the same for different AtomPub stacks (and 
definitively not for WebDAV). However, the link relations that we do 
defined are supposed to be general-purpose, and to be usable outside the 
Atom space (in-line with Mark's "Web Linking" proposal).

2) For the definition of checkin/checkout and the point you raised, how 
about changing the explanation of "versioned resource" from:

"When a resource is put under version control, it becomes a "versioned 
resource". A versioned resource can be "checked out" to allow modification."

to

"When a resource is put under version control, it becomes a "versioned 
resource". Many servers protect versioned resources from modifications 
by considering them "checked in", and by requiring a "checkout" 
operation before modification, and a "checkin" operation to go back to 
the "checked-in" state. Other servers allow modification, in which case 
the checkout/checkin operation may happen implicitly."

Best regards, Julian



Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> first of all thanks for the feedback!
>
> Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > Julian,
> >
> > some comments on the link relation draft:
>  > 2. Terminology
> > It is not clear to me, what the meaning of 'check out' and 'check in'. 
>
> Yes, we need to add text here. We originally started with the 
> definitions with RFC 3253 (WebDAV versioning), but later on decided 
> later on to just rely on generic definitions to make this work better 
> with CMIS and JCR.
>
> > Also, the text (IMO) creates the impression that versioning can only 
> > take place when 'check out' and 'check in' are applied. However, a 
> > resource could also be versioned by the server upon any modification 
> > made by a client regardless of any 'checking out' or 'checking in'. 
> > The link relations specified would still make sense.
>
> Indeed; and that's something that can even happen in WebDAV versioning 
> (through the various modes of auto-versioning).
>
> > Assuming that 'checking out' and 'checking in' are operations on 
> > resources, I think the draft should address how clients achieve these 
> > operations. This would at least involve another link relation and 
> > specification how to use the linked resource to perform a checkout.
>
> These kinds of operations are specific to the protocol in which they are 
> used, while the link relations are meant to be generic; thus I'd avoid 
> to go that way.
>
> For now, I've added this to the issues list: 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-issues.html#issue.checked-out>. 
> I'll try to make a change proposal soonish.
>
> > Or am I misunderstanding what the draft is trying to do?
> >
> > Appendix A
> >
> > It should be 'working-copy' instead of 'working-resource'.
>
> Indeed. Thanks for catching this.
>
> > I am glad to see this happening. Covers a lot of stuff that comes up 
> > in almost every project. Thanks.
>
> That's good to hear, because defining generic link relations doesn't 
> make sense unless there are generic use cases for them :-)
>
> Best regards, Julian