Subject: Re: Optional Backpointers from Targets to References

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 03:26:47 -0400

> Depending on their usage. I don't use backpointers for anything, and
> thus a DASL search is always more efficient.  Likewise, a WebDAV client
> has no direct need for backpointers other than as a means for
> information discovery, which is also more efficiently performed and
> scoped by a search query than via a PROPFIND request.  How that is
> implemented on the server side is none of our business.

Roy, perhaps I misunderstand the context of your statement, but I might
disagree with your statement that "a WebDAV client has no direct need
for backpointers..."   I know that I, as a human client using WebDAV,
might like to know what is referencing a resource.  Perhaps that's
what you meant by "information discovery".  Feel free to clarify.

I could imagine finding backpointers using a DASL like query might be
very slow relative to an architected property/mechanism for
maintaining backpointer info.  Perhaps you could explain why you say
DASL is always more efficient for you.

> I don't particularly care whether a backpointer property is
> defined or not, just so long as people understand that it
> isn't necessary.

I agree that it's not *necessary* to be REQUIRED and even mentioned
in the protocol, but I think I agree with the person that said that it
seems like it would be good to standardize how this info is accessed.

Jason.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:11:12 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> maintaining backpointer info.

Not necessarily.  It's up to the server implementer: if the customers want
backpointer-like functionality, then the server can maintain backpointers
under the covers and use them to respond to the DASL query.  Other servers
which don't expect this to be a common request can just calculate the
response on the fly, and the client won't care which way it's working.  Just
like some servers will implement full-text search via an index, and others
will just grep the files.

I think I prefer the DASL approach; it's just as optional as the property
approach, but it behaves better in the downlevel server case.

> Perhaps you could explain why you say

He means that it's more efficient not to have a feature than to have a
feature that never gets used.

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