Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: A Plea for the workspace header (Was: Why do we need working resource ids ?)"
From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:02:43 +0200
Message-Id: <200005312102.XAA27620@msheas02.msh.de>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
Subject: A Plea for the workspace header (Was: Why do we need working resource ids ?)
Hi, at first I wondered that there was no reaction to my posting
on working resource ids. But then traffic exploded :-)
More perhaps in the next days but two small point for starters.
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> wrote:
> A Workspace header just specifies a prefix that the server should
> apply to the request-URL and header URL's. The result can be either
> an unversioned or a versioned resource. This is just a (fairly minor)
> syntactic convenience for the client.
I would like to keep the workspace header. Workspaces are a fundamental
concept for DISTRIBUTED versioning so they earn their own header.
When starting to implement workspaces I at once ran into the authorization
problem. I decided to try controlling write access on a workspace scope.
So I wouldn't like to extract a workspace from a request URL.
It's much clearer if I can check write permissions by scanning
a Workspace and an Authorization header. I don't have to check whether
a prefix is a workspace or not.
In this context I also have another question (somebody already raised it
some days ago). When authorization fails, is there some appropriate
HTTP code to send back to the client ?
> appropriate revision (probably the commonest case), or (since we are
> using the LABEL marshalling) via the revision URL. (Which just goes
I also prefer LABEL. It's a concept which is easy to explain to users.
Remember the KISS priciple :-)
Regards, Edgar
--
edgar@edgarschwarz.de http://www.edgarschwarz.de
* DOSenfreie Zone. Running Native Oberon. *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein