Subject: Re: CAP Draft 6 comments

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:56:37 -0500

>> CAP would certainly be less efficient without MOVE, but that's better 
than
>> hurrying and getting the ACLs wrong.
>
>But how does the "get, put, delete" help us getting the
>ACLs right?

Er...because it lets us defer the question of what happens to ACLs on 
MOVE.  It then becomes the CUA's responsibility to create the new 
components with ACLs that express the user's intention.  Since expressing 
the user's intentions is the CUA's entire job, this seems appropriate to 
me.

/============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer          |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.     |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.     |
|============================================================|
|If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.|
\============================================================/

---

From: Patrice Lapierre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 09:59:26 -0500

Beside efficiency, there is another fundamental difference 
between a "move" and a combination of "search", "create" 
and "delete". The "move" command is atomic, and since there is 
no transaction in CAP, "search" + "create" + "delete"  is not.

  This makes it very hard (impossible?) for a CUA to implement 
a safe move. 

--
Patrice.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:53:55 -0700

> no transaction in CAP, "search" + "create" + "delete"  is not.

Yes - it is a differance.

>   This makes it very hard (impossible?) for a CUA to implement

You just brought up another reason not to hurry and
put MOVE into CAP. What happends to all of the outstanding iTIP
objects for the old calendar? How do you notify everyone?
(One reason CAP does not do transactions)

We need more talk about MOVE and it is a big issue. We can
punt for now, and talk later. Lets get CAP out.

-Doug