W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1997

RE: Collections

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:09:52 PDT
Message-Id: <>
To: "ejw@ics.uci.edu" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Cc: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 03:45 PM 9/16/97 PDT, Jim Whitehead wrote:

>> To reconcile the two specifications, I think (1) it would be very useful 
>> us to provide an index that describes the entire hierarchy rather than 
>> 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.

I see that this is a problem.  I wonder whether we could let the client
specify one level or depth=infinity in the request, or perhaps specify a
maximum size for the response.


Name:			Judith A. Slein
E-Mail:			slein@wrc.xerox.com
Internal Phone:  	8*222-5169
External Phone:		(716) 422-5169
Fax:			(716) 265-7133
MailStop:		105-50C
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 1997 10:06:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC