Re: Summary: URL rev proposals

At 12:59 AM -0700 8/13/03, Greg Stein wrote:
>While that is nice from a modelling standpoint, it breaks down for the
>relative linking and for the PROPFIND handling, per my previous message.
>Thus, using query components still doesn't solve the situation here.
>...
>Sure, clients can do the transformation, but they might not "know" how to
>properly do that, and (certainly) web browsers are not going to be
>performing any such transformations.
>...
>Further, if you eliminate the "specify rev at end of URL" model, then you
>are left with a revision in the middle somewhere. Now you have problems
>because the namespace in the middle is not clearly separate from the names
>of items that you can commit to that space.
>...
>Ignore the problem? Or enable some way to configure a
>different way to fetch the revision tree? Or maybe you make it more
>complicated, and (thus) harder for an item to conflict:

Greg: is it fair to summarize this post as "there really is no
reasonable solution to this"?

(Not that I agree, actually, but is that what you're saying? ;-)

-- 
-==-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835-8090
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org