You can never legislate against bad-practice.
All you can do is provide good
The notion of the WebDAV style approach is
appealing - allowing users to
manage their space thru that interface - but what
they are building shows
up on the Registry-side as a browse-and-drilldown
is very appealing. With the simple addition
of 'Public' and 'Private' access
models when you create a new folder - seems like
this would be very
doable. The Registry administrator would
still need to approve
stuff to make it visible via the
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] Folder proposal
I am not sure I am happy with user specified URLs as they are
specified now, for the reason you state...sorta.
I would prefer to have
a WebDAV binding that exposes a folder view of the classification schemes.
User specified URLs would be created by making the desired classification
hierarchy. A registry operator could even designate a scheme for that purpose
if security is an issue.
The issue of "folders" has other
ramifications as well.
- Path hardening (encoding version information
into a path spec)
- Relative paths. (less of an issue for registry per say,
but an issue for apps that use them as filesystems).
May 14, 2004, at 2:55 PM, David RR Webber wrote:
One further thought -
currently the Adobe registry has a classification structure/smaller>/fontfamily>___________________________/bigger>/color>
ability to navigate up and down that - and when you add content you/smaller>/fontfamily>
pick a classification node to assign to it. You must also create that/smaller>/fontfamily>
structure, you just cannot build it arbitarily on the fly - (that was/smaller>/fontfamily>
snag with user defined URLs)./smaller>/fontfamily>
is exactly analogous to folders - therefore - it would be good to harmonize/smaller>/fontfamily>
two structures and mechanisms into
Original Message -----/x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
Friday, May 14, 2004 11:41 AM/x-tad-bigger>/fontfamily>
Re: [regrep] Folder proposal
We (Adobe Engineering) like
the Folder concept. It addresses problems that we have
Good work, Farrukh.
On May 14, 2004,
at 12:27 PM, Carl Mattocks wrote:
+1 on leveraging XACML and
minimal change to spec
<from meeting note 5/13/04>
Folder idea (carry
over from F2F). Farrukh not present. Duane’s concern
that it could
violate the MVC and bring registry into UI.
</from meeting note
I had explained this at the New Orleans f2f that
everything I propose is
part of Information Model (the M in MVC). There
is no violation of MVC
by introducing view into the specs.
defining a registry and a repository. All repositories support a
of files and folders as part of their model to facilitate
organization of content (see nt:file and nt:folder in JSR 170
example). This has nothing to do with views (how the structure
No let us go back to the motivation of why I am
enhancement in historical retrospective
In version 2.5 we added an HTTP interface that allowed
RegistryObjects and RepositoryItems to be accessible via a URL
upon its id. The problem was that the URL was meaningless to
submitter (kind of like a KAVI URL).
So next we introduced
post 2.5 and approved the "User defined URL"
feature. This feature
augmented the HTTP interface by allowing a
submitter to optionally
provide one or more user defined URLs that were
meaningful to the user.
This was a major improvement.
However we still have an issue that
user-defined URLs have no access
control. Anyone can assign any
(potentially misleading) URL to objects
they own. For example lets us say
Duane is using the following URLs
prefix for all hist
Now along comes Farrukh and
submits some false information allegedly
pertaining to Duane under the
is absolutely nothing that Duane can do since I published that URL
*MY* object. But the damage is done to Duane's stellar
The File/Folder metaphor proposal augments the
user-defined URLto allow
Duane to protect his stellar reputation.
Registry has a userData folder as root of all userData. The
access control allows anyone to create files and folders in it.
creates a folder named "duane" under it and sets its access control
only allow Duane and possible his dear wife and some choice friends
create files and folders under it. I simply will not be able to write
slanderous files under Duane's folder. Dang! ;-)
How would this
work? Quite simple really. We use some of our existing
primitives" and put them to work for this use case as follows...
create a Folder one creates a RegistryPackage.
To assign access
control to a folder access control one uses "reference
using XACML ACP that we already support. See a couple of
attached. The examples have comments explaining things.
To create a
file within a folder one simply creates a RegistryObject
(which could be
a RegistryPackage / folder) and adds it as a member of
RegistryPackage for the folder. The file can have its own ACP. This
just like Unix file system permissions which is a tried and
model. BTW Unix filesystem is not violating MVC - is
Finally, note that we do not have to introduce any new "Folder"
"File" type in RIM. In fact we do not have to change RIM at
In summary, with little effort we provide a valuable enhancement
Does this explaination address some of
the concerns and clear some
PS: My apologies
for missing yesterday's meeting. My best friend's epic
2 month long
wedding party had another significant
To unsubscribe from this
mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go
co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
(usa) 908 322 8715
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
To unsubscribe from this mailing
list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
IDBU Server Solutions
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems Canada