On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Jan Algermissen wrote:
Does it?
"A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can
be modified to create a new version of a versioned resource."
So it might be enough to:
PUT /working-copies/667
<foo/>
to create a new version of /main/667 ?? (assuming that /main/667 --
working-copy--> /working-copies/667)
What would be the reason to have a working copy that needs not be
checked-in?
That's not what I intended to say; I was just pointing out that the
current definition in the spec does not refer to checkin/checkout
(maybe it should?).
Hmm, I think so. The definition in a sense implies that the version is
created as a result of the modification. Which is IMHO *never* the
case for working copies.
Surely the draft must define 'working copy'. What is the nature of a
working copy? What is its true nature? I think: being *used* for
creating new versions. So, what about:
"A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can
be *used* to create a new version of a versioned resource."
and remove checkout/checkin completely. ('use' instead of 'modify'
sounds less like "The modification cause the versioning" (which it
never does by nature of a working copy (IMHO - s.a.))
If the draft wanted to define it, then it woud be something like:
checkout: an operation on a resource that creates a working copy
checkin: an operation on a working copy that creates a new version of
its corresponding versioned resource.
Jan
BR, Julian
--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen
Mail: [email protected]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
