W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: new proposed text for locking overview

From: John Baumgarten <jbaumgarten@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:29:33 -0700
Message-Id: <C2735D0A-D10C-11D8-A586-000393518B02@apple.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

 From an implementer's viewpoint and one admittedly much less 
knowledgeable about specifications:

I found it much easier to translate the WebDAV specs into a programming 
architecture by classifying locks and ACEs as "associations".  Rather 
than fundamental objects (read "resources") associations are "tuple" 
(principal-action-resource) relationships between resources, with a 
relationship attribute set.

-Jake

JS Baumgarten
Apple .Mac Backend Server Engineering

+1-408-974-0043
jbaumgarten@apple.com
Loc: VG5-1045   MS: 82-EC
20605 Valley Green Dr, Cupertino CA 95014 USA
www.apple.com


On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Jason Crawford wrote:
>> ...
>> I don't like us calling a lock a resource.
>> ...
>> The other paragraphs you included seem reasonable.
>
> I expected pushback on that wording; but I think it really makes 
> things clearer. Anything that has a URI *is* a resource (as per 
> RFC2396 definition). Saying that it is a resource with internal state 
> makes talking about it a lot simpler.
>
> So can you explain *why* you don't like that terminology?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 14:30:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT