[Ocs] Proposal for new field in CONTENT module

[Laszlo Papp]

>
>   That would make sense for one direction, however we need the information
> in
> both directions.


You would need a separate entry for the other direction with the
"requires-way" as well which is also a similar situation to that you have
described below. I do not personally call this an issue.


> Also, since users aren't allowed to edit other users' content
> items, it would be problematic to suddenly add such information to
> content/get
> as it would indicate it has been vetted somehow (as everything else
> returned
> by that call is provided by the owner, not by others). However, if that is
> deemed to not be a problem by everybody else here, then i don't have any
> real
> issue with that idea.
>

I would not personally place ACL in general into the specification because
of the following reasons:

1) It is outside of the scope for this specification.
2) The real content still belongs only to the author, it is just about the
collaboration data.
3) Servers should only return what data they are permitted to, by their acl
model.
4) Client apps should not assume. They will get all data requested.
5) Such considerations can slow the specification down in general at times
(i.e. getting all the necessary metadata in a bunch does not result extra
calls which can be costy as mentioned in a previous email).


>   A note, though: For adding, the information should need to be given on
> adding and editing the child item, though presumably that would go without
> saying. The information in content/get would then become an aggregation,
> akin
> to the comments number.
>

Yes, it would be consistent with the rest for OCS v1.

Laszlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/ocs/attachments/20120817/5ff36aa4/attachment.html>