Any news or comments about this issue?

Regards,
Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Structure of history folder
> 
> 
> Yes, it sounds pragmatic and good to me too. Unfortunately, both specs
> (DeltaV and ACL) are silent WRT this problem. Some time ago we, at
> Software AG, tried hard to find an appropriate solution ... but didn't
> succeed :(
> 
> Here are some questions/remarks:
> 
> A) AFAIU the idea is to let *all* VRs of an history somehow
> *dynamically* "inherit" the ACLs from another resource. 
> Right? Could it
> be:
> 1) from one specific VR of the history?
>    a) which one? root VR? latest VR? (there can be many latest)
>    b) how does it get its ACL initially?
> 2) from a VCR?
>    a) what if multiple VCRs are related to the same history?
>    b) take the VCR from an assumed "global workspace"?
> 
> B) If A-2 is correct: what if the VCR is deleted and the 
> history remains
> ... what are then the persmissions of the history?
> 
> C) If all VRs of a history should have the same set of permissions,
> these are ideally defined at the VHR and inherited over the namespace
> hierarchy?
> 
> D) The ACL spec defines a strange "inheritance" mechanism over the
> DAV:inherited-acl-set property:
> "This protected property contains a set of URLs that identify other
> resources that also control the access to this resource.  To have a
> privilege on a resource, not only must the ACL on that resource
> (specified in the DAV:acl property of that resource) grant the
> privilege, but so must the ACL of each resource identified in the
> DAV:inherited-acl-set property of that resource.  Effectively, the
> privileges granted by the current ACL are ANDed with the privileges
> granted by each inherited ACL."
> 
> Could this property help? Did you (Mike O.) use it in your solution?
> 
> Regards,
> Peter
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 09:02
> > To: Slide Developers Mailing List
> > Cc: Nevermann, Dr., Peter
> > Subject: Re: Structure of history folder
> > 
> > 
> > To me this sounds good. What does Peter say to all this as I 
> > understand 
> > he has written most of the DeltaV code.
> > 
> > Peter?
> > 
> > Oliver
> > 
> > Michael Smith wrote:
> > > Michael Oliver wrote:
> > > 
> > >> I believe that the current permissions on the current 
> > version should be
> > >> applied to all versions and not the permissions at the 
> > time the version
> > >> was created.  This is how we did it with Livelink and our 
> > reasoning at
> > >> the time was as follows:
> > >>
> > >> 1) If a user is removed from access to the current 
> version, this is
> > >> usually because the owner of the document wants the 
> content of the
> > >> document removed from view for that user (or group).
> > >>
> > >> 2) If a user is granted access to a document, then all 
> > previous versions
> > >> are also granted, for a similar reason.
> > >>
> > >> 3) Access to specific versions without access to all versions was
> > >> possible in Livelink with a concept we called 
> > "generations" that allowed
> > >> a specific version of a document to appear to the system 
> > as a separate
> > >> "generation" document.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Michael,
> > > 
> > > This sounds fairly reasonable. My suggestions before were 
> > not intended 
> > > as a "this is the way it should work", but more intended as 
> > a way to 
> > > spark some discussion of the possible approaches - looks 
> > like it worked :-)
> > > 
> > > The "generations" stuff looks interesting - but somewhat 
> > unrelated. I 
> > > think we can (should) probably implement just 1 & 2 initially.
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to