[Cosmo-dev] Sharing format questions

Brian Moseley bcm at osafoundation.org
Wed Jul 19 11:09:20 PDT 2006

On 7/18/06, Morgen Sagen <morgen at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> They don't have a "location" per se.  I mean, if you look under the
> repository hood you'll probably see they live in //userdata/ but
> that's not the primary method for accessing repository items.  Items
> are accessed by looking them up by UUID, by following references, or
> iterating item collections.  Since Chandler items can live in
> multiple collections at the same time, we don't use hierarchical
> paths, really.  Does that answer your question?

yes. this leads to another question - should cosmo require that items
be stored in a hierarchy? what if we had our own "item soup" that you
could PUT/GET/POST/DELETE into, as an alternative to putting them in
structured collections with webdav?

til now, cosmo's data model has been designed primarily according to
webdav, but with the hibernate project we have the opportunity to
redesign it in a more protocol-neutral way. not all of our data has to
be directly mapped to webdav and friends (although it's easy to
imagine a special webdav collection exposing an item soup if

> Perhaps.  I'll have to think about this one some more.  I now realize
> we may have an issue with the editability of these secondary items.
> They "come along for the ride" when the primary items in a collection
> are shared, but does that imply that other subscribers have
> permission to modify them?  (It does in today's Chandler/Cosmo
> implementation)

i don't see why not, unless the user has explicitly told chandler not
to let them be editable.

More information about the cosmo-dev mailing list