Subject: Re: CAP Draft 6 comments

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:02:43 -0500

>Do people have an issue with
>calenders possibly becoming more restrictive after a move?

What if I *wanted* it to become less restrictive? By analogy to 
filesystems, sometimes I move a file into my ~/public_html directory, so 
it can be accessed via HTTP.  If I want to make a set of events publicly 
visible, I might move them into a calendar which grants read access to the 
world.

/==============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer            |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.       |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.       |
|==============================================================|
|The Net regards censorship as damage, and routes around it. --|
|John Gilmore                                                  |
\==============================================================/

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:25:31 -0500

Once you have moved an object you could set new VCARs to make it be less
restrictive.

The alternatives that I can think of are:

1) Don't carry any of the inherited VCARS during a move. The resultant
behavior would be a result of the explicity VCARs and the inherited VCARs
from the new location.

2) Provide 2 move commands, one version would copy the current resultant
VCARs and the other would provide the semantics of choice 1 from above.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Stracke
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CAP Draft 6 comments

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:55:33 -0700

> visible, I might move them into a calendar which grants read access to the

The more we talk, the more I am sure we have not thought 
about this - I am leaning more to the lets drop moving
calendars in the current CAP. We can do an add on later after we
solved the issues.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:05:26 -0700

> behavior would be a result of the explicity VCARs and the inherited VCARs

The only way to find out that you don't have the ability to
undo what you did is after you did it :-)
 
> VCARs ...

You can configure a VCAR so that the user can't see it by
not GRANTing them access to reading some, a set, or all VCARS.
How would you find the result set?

>. ...and the other would provide the semantics of choice 1 from above.

Without any way (that I can think of) for getting the result set,
I don't know how to do that. I can VQUERY for all the VCARs stored
that I have access to. But I will never be able to find that a system
administrator has configured (for a valid reason) an implementation
that will not allow some of the new (destination) VCARS to work.

-Doug

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Mansour)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:44:59 -0800

> visible, I might move them into a calendar which grants read access to the

then you should move it to a parent that is less restrictive and adjust the
vcars accordingly.  We're err'ing on the side of caution.

-Steve