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
