[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Note on CMIS utilizing COPY and MOVE verbs
I saw a post on the JSR list and it prodded to me to (re)read the appropriate rfcs. If you look at copy (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2518#section-8.8) or move (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2518#section-8.9), it is articulated to copy (or move) a resource from location a (uri1) to location b (uri2). These locations are fully specified to be where the object will live after the verb. They include the location under the folder, rather than uri2 being the uri to the folder. Am I understanding COPY and MOVE correctly in WebDAV?
This is a discrepancy with the CMIS model.
In CMIS, we have:
- moveObject (object, folder)
- addObjectToFolder(object, folder)
- removeObjectFromFolder(object, folder)
In WebDAV case COPY/MOVE would want uri2 to contain the location of the object in the folder: e.g. http://foo/folder1/newlocation where in CMIS it should be http://foo/folder1.
In CMIS, there is not a notion of path, only folder containment. All URI's in the rest binding are basically repository-specific how they are generated. The most a client can do is specify the Slug ala app.
If we would like to use COPY and MOVE, wouldn't we have to redefine COPY and MOVE for CMIS?
Emerging Standards and Industry Frameworks
Industry Frameworks: https://w3.tap.ibm.com/w3ki07/display/ECMIF/Home
Office 714 327 3453
Mobile 714 263 6441
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The contents of this message, including any attachments, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the message was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original message and any attached documentation.