- From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:35:28 -0800
- To: dasl <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
"Babich, Alan" wrote: > (1) Why couldn't there be multiple arbiters that searched a collection? That > would seem to be required if and when we transition to arbiters that can > search across multiple collections. (The original arbiter would still work > for upward compatibility, and one or more new multiple-collection arbiters > would come into existence.) We're in agreement on this - I would object to anything in the spec. that implied otherwise. > (2) Therefore, it seems that requiring collections be aware of all the > arbiters that can search them is not acceptable. Why should collections care > what arbiters can search them anyway? The collections may not care, however, the open question is one of arbiter discovery - How can I find out what arbiter to direct my query to if I want to search through collection X. I think that interrogating the collection directly is the most direct way to address this. > (3) Why should a collection be forced to act as a arbiter? That would be an > undue burden and bad layering. I agree, resources in general should not be forced to act as an arbiter, but should be able to direct someone to a search arbiter, if one exists, that can be used on that resource. This does not imply that a resource should know about every arbiter, a generally impossible requirement to satisfy, but a minimum requirement should be that a resource should identify a default arbiter that can be used. Elias
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 16:35:31 UTC