Yes, this was an oversight. I've updated the table [1] with a proposal we can discuss in the workgroup. Your statement below is fine, but in my opinion the spec itself should be neutral on deletion. Roles, permissions, etc come into play quickly and can be implementation specific. I've added some proposed wording on delete to the end of the table.
[1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/AutoSpecificationV2#Automation_Service_Provider_HTTP Regards, Mike Michael Fiedler IBM Rational Software [email protected] 919-254-4170 John Arwe/Poughkeepsie /IBM@IBMUS To Sent by: [email protected], oslc-automation-b cc ounces@open-servi ces.net Subject [Oslc-Automation] HTTP method support 04/03/2012 05:11 PM I see we (me, probably) left DELETE out of the table; given that we require POST for automation requests, and allow it for others, seems like we might have requirements on DELETE. More generally, have to think we should be saying something about which actors are responsible for managing the lifecycle of each resource, even if that is to explicitly say it is unconstrained/implementation dependent. I like to start devs off with "if you created it, you're responsible for managing its deletion; either delete it yourself, or delegate to some other party, but it's YOUR job to make sure it happens" mentality, lest we end up with lots of chaff clogging the servers. Not that having allergies influences this view at all ;-) Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario _______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net
