On 25.7.13 15:27, Antonio Sanso wrote:
I have the impression that the name ImmutableTree/Root doesn't match completely the concept. A more appropriate name would be IMHO something like ImmutableUnsecureTree/Root We might also have ImmutableTree/Root though but then will have some security layer as the Mutable one. This change of name might allow us to be more specific on some internal API where we currently pass a Tree but what we actually would need is ImmutableUnsecureTree
It seems to me we are mixing different aspects here: the one of mutability and the one of access rights. AFAICS it happens to be the case that for the permission evaluation code immutable trees are sufficient but we need them also to be non secured.
Lets go one step at a time. First refactor the commonalities of the respective Root implementations into a common base class and rename the sub classes to much those of Tree.
Second we might want to have another look on the separation of secured vs. non secured trees and how we could better handle this.
Michael
