Re: MKCOL for making collections

On 01/22/2013 12:12 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello alexandre.
>
> On 2013-01-22 17:53 , "Alexandre Bertails" <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> Why can't we do this?  A Container/Collection IS a resource.  So
>>>> therefore POST'ing the representation of it seems like the most
>>>> obvious way to create one.
>>> fyi, atompub never specified creating collections. some people engineered
>>> around this by exposing übercollections, other by exposing specific
>>> resources (not collections) that you POST a new collection to. in our
>>> implementation, we give workspaces identifiers and then you POST to
>>> them.
>>> all of these ways work fine, and from all i've seen, people have used
>>> the
>>> well-defined representation of a collection as something to POST, and
>>> then
>>> this creates a new collection.
>> I'm not sure to understand how this works but you raised my attention.
>> Can you give an example?
>
> all of this of course is hypothetical: when you access the LDP home
> document, you GET a variety of interaction affordances that allow clients
> to start interactions with the LDP server. some wotk bu GETting a list of
> managed collections on the server, and then you can GET the actual
> collection content in a next step, and GET an actual entry in a next step.
>
> another interaction affordance provided on the home document is a resource
> that accepts requests to create new collections. call it a "collection
> factory". the LDP protocol says that to create a new collection, you POST
> the representation of what you want to create to that resource. once a
> client does that (and the server accepts the request), a new collection is
> created, the HTTP response will redirect you to the URI of the new
> collection, and the new collection will show up in the list of available
> collection.
>
> should we have workspaces or something similar (some way of "grouping"
> collections), then we have the choice of exposing individual "collection
> factories" for each of those groups, or to just have one factory and
> require that clients specify in the creation request which group the new
> collection should belong to. (in the latter case, we would have the option
> to have collections in more than one group, which would be harder to do in
> the former case).
>
> is that example detailed enough? if not, let me know. cheers,

Can you define what you mean by "LDP home document"?

 From what I understand with what you say, I'm not sure if one could
create the collection /foo/bar/ only by talking with /foo/, or if it
must find the collection factory somewhere else.

In my understanding, a container is polymorphic (it accepts/contains
things of any kind), so there should not be any exception for
containing another LDPC. Just like a filesystem.

Alexandre.

>
> dret.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 18:14:25 UTC