Re: [regrep] Folder proposal overview

From
"Eavid QQ Vebber"
Date
2004-05-14T18:43:13+00:00
ID
067a01c439e3$ddf3fa50$6401a8c0@DRRW01
Thread
Re: [regrep] Folder proposal overview
Matt,

 

You can never legislate against bad-practice.  
All you can do is provide good

guidelines.

 

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 
classification heirarchy

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 
registry....

 

Thanks, DW

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Matthew MacKenzie 
  

  
To: David RR Webber 

  
Cc:  
  

  
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:29 PM

  
Subject: Re: [regrep] Folder proposal 
  overview

  

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).

-Matt

On 
  May 14, 2004, at 2:55 PM, David RR Webber wrote:

  One further thought - 
    currently the Adobe registry has a classification structure
and 
    ability to navigate up and down that - and when you add content you
have to 
    pick a classification node to assign to it.  You must also create that
classification 
    structure, you just cannot build it arbitarily on the fly - (that was
the 
    snag with user defined URLs).
 
This 
    is exactly analogous to folders - therefore - it would be good to harmonize
these 
    two structures and mechanisms into 
    one....
 
DW.
----- 
    Original Message -----
From: 
Matthew 
    MacKenzie 
To: 
 

Sent: 
    Friday, May 14, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: 
    Re: [regrep] Folder proposal 
    overview

We (Adobe Engineering) like 
    the Folder concept. It addresses problems that we have 
    encountered.

Good work, Farrukh.

-Matt

On May 14, 2004, 
    at 12:27 PM, Carl Mattocks wrote:

+1 on leveraging XACML and 
    minimal change to spec

<quote who="Farrukh 
    Najmi">

<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 
    5/13/04>

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.

We are 
    defining a registry and a repository. All repositories support a
notion 
    of files and folders as part of their model to facilitate
structural 
    organization of content (see nt:file and nt:folder in JSR 170
for 
    example). This has nothing to do with views (how the structure 
    is
displayed).

No let us go back to the motivation of why I am 
    proposing this
enhancement in historical retrospective 
    perspective...

In version 2.5 we added an HTTP interface that allowed 
    all
RegistryObjects and RepositoryItems to be accessible via a URL 
    based
upon its id. The problem was that the URL was meaningless to 
    the
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 
    objects:

..../userData/duane/....

Now along comes Farrukh and 
    submits some false information allegedly
pertaining to Duane under the 
    URL:

..../userData/duane/companyInfo/aboutDuanesCompany.html

There 
    is absolutely nothing that Duane can do since I published that URL
on 
    *MY* object. But the damage is done to Duane's stellar 
    reputation.

The File/Folder metaphor proposal augments the 
    user-defined URLto allow
Duane to protect his stellar reputation.
The 
    Registry has a userData folder as root of all userData. The 
    folders
access control allows anyone to create files and folders in it. 
    Duane
creates a folder named "duane" under it and sets its access control 
    to
only allow Duane and possible his dear wife and some choice friends 
    to
create files and folders under it. I simply will not be able to write 
    my
slanderous files under Duane's folder. Dang! ;-)

How would this 
    work? Quite simple really. We use some of our existing
"few good 
    primitives" and put them to work for this use case as follows...

To 
    create a Folder one creates a RegistryPackage.

To assign access 
    control to a folder access control one uses "reference
access control" 
    using XACML ACP that we already support. See a couple of
examples 
    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
the 
    RegistryPackage for the folder. The file can have its own ACP. This
is 
    just like Unix file system permissions which is a tried and 
    trusted
model. BTW Unix filesystem is not violating MVC - is 
    it?

Finally, note that we do not have to introduce any new "Folder" 
    or
"File" type in RIM. In fact we do not have to change RIM at 
    all!

In summary, with little effort we provide a valuable enhancement 
    to our
repository feature.

Does this explaination address some of 
    the concerns and clear some
misunderstandings?

PS: My apologies 
    for missing yesterday's meeting. My best friend's epic
2 month long 
    wedding party had another significant 
    event.

--
Regards,
Farrukh

To unsubscribe from this 
    mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go 
    to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

--
Carl 
    Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content 
    SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f 
    (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart 
    Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi

To unsubscribe from this mailing 
    list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
    http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

___________________________
Matthew 
    MacKenzie
Senior Architect
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems 
    Canada 
    Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/

+1 (506) 
    871.5409

___________________________
Matthew 
  MacKenzie
Senior 
  Architect
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems Canada 
  Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/

+1 (506) 
  871.5409