Jan Algermissen wrote:
...
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."
...
So, substituting "modified" by "used". I'm ok with that.
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.
The issue here is that in some systems, checkout will not create a new
resource, just flip a bit on the versioned resource.
Also, (I think) there are systems where checking in does not create a
new version, but flips a bit on the working resource *making* it a
version (at the same URL).
Thus, defining this would need to be defined in a more generic way. My
attempt:
"Checkout: an operation on a versioned resource that creates a working
copy, or changes the versioned resource to be a working-copy as well
("in-place versioning").
Checkin: an operation on a working copy that creates a new version of
its corresponding versioned resource.
Note: the operations for putting a resource under version control, and
for checking in and checking out depend on the protocol in use and are
beyond the scope of this document; see [CMIS], [RFC3253] and [JSR-283]
for details)."
Best regards, Julian
