Subject: Re: Optional Backpointers from Targets to References

From: Jim Amsden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:08:31 -0400

Yet another special case. Pile all these up and you start getting problems.
What if the target resource is versioned? Are you saying we can now add more
special cases to let this property be changed on a versioned resource? Again,
if the semantics have to be specified as a series of special cases, that's a
good indication something is wrong, and usesr aren't likely to be able to
remember all these cases.

[email-masked] on 09/15/98 07:20:22 PM
Please respond to [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
cc:
Subject: Re: Optional Backpointers from Targets to References

Jim Amsden wrote:

> This will require ACLs on individual properties,

Nope.  The backpointer update doesn't have to pass through the same code path as
PROPPATCH; it can call directly into the code that PROPPATCH calls, but bypass
the
ACL check.

>> I don't believe that has to be a problem.  The ACLs can be set up so that
they
>> specifically permit the backpointer property to be updated by the server.
>
--
/====================================================================\
|John (Francis) Stracke    |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported |
|Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================|
|Netscape Comm. Corp.      |The good are innocent and create justice.|
[email-masked]      |The bad are guilty, and invent mercy.    |
\====================================================================/
New area code for work number: 650

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:35:13 -0700

Jim Amsden wrote:

> special cases to let this property be changed on a versioned resource?

It's a *live property*.  That's the only special case here.  It doesn't have the
same semantics as a dead property; it doesn't even have to be *stored* like a dead
property; it can be generated on the fly, like a CGI script.  If the resource in
question is a frozen revision, fine; the "preserve all properties on frozen
revisions" requirement doesn't make sense for live properties, certainly not ones
which are derived from the states of other resources.

--
/====================================================================\
|John (Francis) Stracke    |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported |
|Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================|
|Netscape Comm. Corp.      | If you're omniscient, how do you know?  |
[email-masked]      |                                         |
\====================================================================/
New area code for work number: 650