Re: recursive deletion (Re: Model questions)

hello eric.

On 2013-01-29 14:04 , "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>It's hard to imagine that hackers checking out LDP will see much value if
>it doesn't permit them to create and delete collections, leaving no crap
>for them to clean up. On the other hand, it's realy really hard to
>imagine deployment of recursive-delete in large systems unless they
>impose the rule "don't delete containers".

why not simply make it work like the web works? if you want your content
to be under the management of the LDP server, you embed the content, and
when the collection gets deleted, everything with it gets deleted, too. if
you want your content to be separate resources you manage yourself
(anywhere on the web), you create them (anywhere), and then the content
gets linked from the LDP entry. when you trash the collection, the links
disappear, but the content remains unaffected. what's the downside of such
a simple and clear model that simply leverages the difference between
embedding and linking?

cheers,

dret.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 13:50:23 UTC