abdera-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: Modeling Media Versions
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:03:08 GMT
I like your solution better and I think I will have to adopt it! That 
would leave me with something like:

/images is where new images are POSTed to
/images/foo.atom gets entry for latest image. Has a <collection> element 
which points to a feed of previous revisions
/images/foo gets latest image. a PUT to /images/foo updates the latest 
image and adds a new version.
/images/foo/feed gets a collection of the revisions
/images/foo/version gets a particular image version
/images/foo/version.atom gets a particular version of the entry

Going to have to make some improvements to the CollectionProvider stuff 
(well there's lots of stuff that needs to be done anyway), but I think 
this will work. Thanks a lot Chris.

- Dan

Chris Berry wrote:
> We are modeling this a bit differently
> We assume optimistic concurrency, so there is really only a single 
> revision associated with a given Resource (Entry) at any given time
> e.g. GET  /foo/bar/123   ==>  always yields the latest/greatest 
> revision of that Entry
> but to edit an Entry you MUST provide a revision Id -- e.g. 
> /foo/bar/123/2
> All this info is kept in a metadata database for the Atom "data server "
> We allow for a "single writer" model by allowing for a "/*" revision 
> (e.g. foo/bar/123/*) and assume that the User knows what they're doing
>
> We do all of our creation via PUT, because in our case the Entry 
> identifiers are coming from the outside.
> But you could do something similar with a POST to the Collection URL
>
> What is in the content (and it's storage) is transparent, and implies 
> an implicit contract between you and the User (e.g. we use RelaxNG to 
> impose that contract)
> Supplying different Representations (foo/bar/123 or foo/bar/123.jpg) 
> associated with a given Resource seems consistent to me.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Chris
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
>> Brian Moseley wrote:
>>> On 10/8/07, Dan Diephouse <dan.diephouse@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Which leads me back to wanting to just POST to /images... Is there 
>>>> anything
>>>> wrong with just POSTing to /images and having /images/foo,
>>>> /images/foo/versions, /images/foo/versions/1 and 
>>>> /images/foo/versions/1.jpg
>>>> all created in that POST?
>>>>
>>> Hm, seems fine to me!
>>>
>> OK thanks Brian! :-)
>>
>> -- 
>> Dan Diephouse
>> MuleSource
>> http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog
>
> S'all good  ---   chriswberry at gmail dot com
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com/blog


Mime
View raw message