Re: MKCOL for making collections

hello arnaud.

On 2013-01-22 22:04 , "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>I believe this is where the disconnect is.

thanks for looking into this!

>If I got it right, in AtomPub and the model Erik is suggesting we adopt
>because it would work both for composition and aggregation, a collection
>doesn't contain member resources directly, it contains entries. Entries
>can then
> contain resources (composition) or links to other resources
>(aggregation).

collections contain entries which always are associated with content (by
containment or by link). LDP management of entries is based on entry
metadata, not on content. that's the model i have i mind. the model only
talks about domain concepts (entries, content). how this is mapped to
resources (in the REST sense of the word) then is a question of how those
concepts use containment and/or linking, and if we allow both, we're
golden.


>The cost of this model is to introduce a level of indirection.

where is that additional level and how could you possibly make things more
direct? if you GET a "contained entry", you GET all in one resource. if
you GET a "linked entry", you have to issue another GET to get the
content, but no model on earth can prevent that from happening when the
collection and its entries are managed on a different server from the
actual entry content.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 21:54:24 UTC