Angela Schreiber wrote:
> but that's a different story isn't it? i was talking about the
> compliance class (and the method set).
Probably. I just wanted to make sure that no time is spent on something
that is broken in the spec...
>>> RFC 3253 defines a separate behaviour for version-controlled
>>> collections.
>
>> I'm not completely sure what the issue is? A version controlled
>> collection is a specific type of a regular version controlled
>> resource, it just also records information about version controlled
>> children...
>
> what i meant:
>
> http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253.html#version-controlled-collection.feature
>
> states the following:
>
> "As with any versionable resource, when a collection is put under
> version control, a version history resource is created to contain
> versions for that version-controlled collection. In order to preserve
> standard versioning semantics (a version of a collection should not be
> modifiable), a collection version only records information about the
> version-controlled bindings of that collection.
>
> In order to cleanly separate a modification to the namespace from a
> modification to content or dead properties, a version of a collection
> has no members, but instead records in its
> DAV:version-controlled-binding-set property the binding name and version
> history resource of each version-controlled internal member of that
> collection.
> [...]
>
> A version-controlled collection has all the properties of a collection
> and of a version-controlled resource. In addition, the
> version-controlled-collection feature introduces the following REQUIRED
> property for a version-controlled collection.
>
> 14.1.1 DAV:eclipsed-set (computed)
> [...]"
Clarifying: the difference between a collection and a non-collection
with respect to WebDAV versioning is that the version-controlled state
of a collection *additionally* includes the binding-set (for the
members), but not the members itself.
> however: the patch provided by jeremi and modified by rob does
> not distinguish between collections and non-collection resources.
> in both cases the underlying repository Node is made 'versionable'.
> consequently both collections and non-collections behave the
> same way (i.e. like version-controlled resources), which is from my
> understanding not what the RFC defines. see quote above.
>
> do i miss something?
Hm, probably I'm partly confused because I've "grown up" with RFC3253
semantics, and haven't used collection versioning in JCR so far (the
system I currently work on only can version leaf files + properties).
It seems the counterpart of a version controlled collection in WebDAV
would be a JCR node where all children have
OnParentVersionAction=IGNORE, meaning they are always version-controlled
independently of the parent. I'm not sure whether anything else can be
exposed in a RCF3253 compliant way.
We may have to ask Geoff for advice :-).
Best regards, Julian
|