- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:45:06 -0400
- To: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Tuesday, September 16, 1997 12:42 PM, Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com] wrote: > If there was a discussion period on collections, I missed it. I do have > some comments to make, however, especially in light of DRP. I have been holding off on the discussion period for collections until a new draft which incorporates feedback from the Orem and Munich meetings is complete. > The DRP index differs from ours (aside from implementation details) in > several ways: > > 1. It describes the entire hierarchy, whereas ours describes only a single > level of the hierarchy. > > 2. It contains different information about each member of the hierarchy. > > 3. DRP hierarchies have only internal members, whereas WEBDAV allows both > internal and external members. > > To reconcile the two specifications, I think (1) it would be very useful for > us to provide an index that describes the entire hierarchy rather than just > one level. The issue here is how to bound the size of the index results. DRP is able to bound the size of their index results because this index file can be manually created, and because the creator of the index file can ensure that it will never become too large. I don't think DRP is suggesting that their index files be used as a general purpose mechanism for retrieving the contents of all collections. Rather, DRP is interested in getting a consistent configuration of resources (and their content identifiers) for each "channel," which is presumably a smaller set than all possible resources on the server. My fear with returning a full depth infinity index for all cases is that some cases (e.g., collections high up in a hierarchy) may return very large results, which could cause a problem for low-memory clients. - Jim
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 1997 18:46:17 UTC