28.01.2002 17:57:26, "Nevermann, Dr., Peter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Christopher,
>
>> But what I'd like to see would be some kind of quick
>> overview of how much the Slide kernel would need to change to
support
>> the DeltaV model more naturally.
>
>Well, the main issue would be to introduce the version history as an
>independent resource in opposite to having each resource carrying its
>history. We didn't go further as soon as we became aware of the
impact
>this would have. Isn't this a question of short- and long-term
solutions?
>
Definitely :)
>> Hmm, what makes "/users/john/workspace" different from the
hypothical
>> "/users/john/My Files" ? A principal-collection is identified by
it's
>> type, which must be GroupNode. The node "/users/john" is a
>> SubjectNode
>> (with user-role), so I can't see a potential conflict here. Putting
>> the workspace into the user 'directory' seems cleaner as it is
user-
>> specific anyway, and you don't have to replicate the complete user
>> list in another scope.
>
>OK, I too need to do my homework by reading the ACL specification :)
>Your are right, since principals and principal collection always have
>resource-type DAV:principal, there should be no conflict here.
>
>Anyway, our plan was to make URI paths configurable in the namespace.
>For workspaces it could be:
>
> <workspacepath>/workspaces</workspacepath>
>
>or something like:
>
> <workspacepath>/users/${principal}/workspaces</workspacepath>
That looks nice IMO.
-chris
________________________________________________________________
cmlenz at gmx.de
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
