RE: [Simple] Update to xcap package

[Adam Roach <adam at dynamicsoft.com>]

hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:

> In CPCP, you might need to replace a resource in the
> ACL, or change its access-type from allowed to blocked.
> The way XCAP is specified now, as we discussed, you need
> to know the exact position for the resource you want
> replace (they don't have unique IDs besides the URI they
> carry).

It seems to me that you've identified a shortcoming in
the current CPCP XCAP draft. As Joel pointed out, XCAP
is largely intended to be used on XML documents that
were developed explicitly for use with XCAP. If you
leave no easy way to identify elements in a schema
ostensibly designed for use with XCAP, then I'd say the
schema needs more work.

> In CPCP, you might need to replace a resource in the ACL, or 
> change its access-type from allowed to blocked. The way XCAP 
> is specified now, as we discussed, you need to know the exact 
> position for the resource you want replace (they don't have 
> unique IDs besides the URI they carry). This might be ok, if 
> we always assume that the client has an exact copy of what is 
> on the server. I.e. The client MUST always know the number of 
> elements present and provide the position where to insert the 
> new element as the last element, and therefore knows the 
> exact position of the element to replace.

Erm... isn't that pretty much the case anyway? If the client
doesn't have the most recent document, then any attempted change
will be kicked back because the etag does not match. Now, I'll
admit that it may be easier to implement a client that uses
identifiers rather than positions, but I don't see your
particular objection as a sticking point.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple