- From: John Baumgarten <jbaumgarten@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:29:33 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
From an implementer's viewpoint and one admittedly much less knowledgeable about specifications: I found it much easier to translate the WebDAV specs into a programming architecture by classifying locks and ACEs as "associations". Rather than fundamental objects (read "resources") associations are "tuple" (principal-action-resource) relationships between resources, with a relationship attribute set. -Jake JS Baumgarten Apple .Mac Backend Server Engineering +1-408-974-0043 jbaumgarten@apple.com Loc: VG5-1045 MS: 82-EC 20605 Valley Green Dr, Cupertino CA 95014 USA www.apple.com On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Jason Crawford wrote: >> ... >> I don't like us calling a lock a resource. >> ... >> The other paragraphs you included seem reasonable. > > I expected pushback on that wording; but I think it really makes > things clearer. Anything that has a URI *is* a resource (as per > RFC2396 definition). Saying that it is a resource with internal state > makes talking about it a lot simpler. > > So can you explain *why* you don't like that terminology? > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > >
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 14:30:24 UTC