W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:41:06 +0200
To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEHKFKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:31 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>
>
>
> I think it's not a good idea to report information about
> "all" quota spaces in a resource:

So do I.

> - the resource might not know all quotas on the server
> - you need additional information which quota applies to the
>    current resource

The intent off my proposal to report exactly the quotas that *do* apply to
the resource.

> Since the reported set is likely to be incomplete (and or expensive
> to compute), I think only one quote should be reported.

If it only contains the applicable quotas, it shouldn't be harder to compute
than a single quota.

> However, I do think that there is benefit in having one quota-xxx
> property which has a XML structured value. That makes it easy to
> extend in the future.
>
> //Stefan
>
> Am Donnerstag, 24.10.02, um 20:35 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian
> Reschke:
>
> >
> >> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:22 PM
> >> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> >> Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you think this is preferable for the client?  Why not keep
> >
> > It allows marshalling of multiple quota constraints (and we know that
> > there
> > may be more than one).
> >
> >> single-property, single-value?  This complicates things even for the
> >> server.
> >
> > Why? For a server that enforces only a single constraint, it's just a
> > few
> > more XML tags to add. Where's the problem?
> >
> > Confused,
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
> >
>
>



--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 04:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT