Re: [camp] operations.target_resource and operation.target_resource redundant?

[Alex Heneveld <alex.heneveld@cloudsoftcorp.com>]

both are logically associated to the target_resource and if you're a 
consumer you almost certainly want to know what the target_resource is 
when you look at the {operation,operations}.

we don't have backpointer from operation to operations (i don't think) 
so personally i think it is good to have the target_resource at both so 
the {operation,operations} resources are meaningful on their own 
(without relying on the sequence of calls you made to get there).

--A


On 16/12/2013 13:49, Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> Why do both the "operations" resource and the "operation" resource contain a "target_resource" attribute that references resource on which the operation(s) act? It seems somewhat redundant to me. If every operation referenced in the "operations" collection affects the same resource, why do the individual "operation" resources need to re-reference the affected resource?
>
> Alex H.? Anyone?
>
> ~ gp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php