Confirming a merge

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Confirming a merge

Werner Donné

Hi,

To confirm a merge, a client should move a source URI from either
the merge-set or the auto-merge-set to the predecessor-set. This
can lead to an inconsistent server if the second of both property
updates fails or is never issued by the client. Such a responsibility
should not lie with the client. I think it is better that the server
does it and in an atomic way. This requires either another method
or another behaviour of the CHECKIN method when a merge is not
complete, i.e. the CHECKIN becomes the confirmation.

Regards,

Werner.
--
Werner Donné  --  Re
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803 e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Confirming a merge

Geoffrey M Clemm

I agree ... we made this change in JSR-170 (which otherwise follows the  RFC-3253 model).
If we do a maintenance release for RFC-3253, this is an enhancement we should probably add.
Cheers,
Geoff



Werner Donné <[hidden email]>
Sent by: [hidden email]

12/01/2006 02:43 PM

Please respond to
[hidden email]

To
[hidden email]
cc
Subject
Confirming a merge






Hi,

To confirm a merge, a client should move a source URI from either
the merge-set or the auto-merge-set to the predecessor-set. This
can lead to an inconsistent server if the second of both property
updates fails or is never issued by the client. Such a responsibility
should not lie with the client. I think it is better that the server
does it and in an atomic way. This requires either another method
or another behaviour of the CHECKIN method when a merge is not
complete, i.e. the CHECKIN becomes the confirmation.

Regards,

Werner.
--
Werner Donné  --  Re
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803                 e-mail: [hidden email]