[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: issue: draft posts


Joe Gregorio wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:44:44 -0500, Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dare Obasanjo wrote:


I was saying the same element
should be reused to indicate that an entry is a draft
when retrieved from the server.

Sure. Or we could put them in a different collection.


Would it be of any value to do both?

I dunno.

That is, all entries, whether 'draft' or 'published', appear in the main entry
collection. In addition, there is a 'draft' entry collection
that contains only those entries that are drafts.

My gmail account works in much the same way,

Ok, but how does GMail talk to the server? That's where the protocol is.


I do worry that this could cause a raft of new entry collections
and make the protocol that much more complex.

If you can't tell, I have no opinion yet, just exploring ideas.

Me too. I was suggesting two separate collections, rather than sub-collections. I can think of two possible ways to move between them:

MOVE /drafts/entryXYZ HTTP/1.1
Target-Collection: /public

or...

POST /public HTTP/1.1
With-Entry: /drafts/entryXYZ

This has the advantage of happening above-board. We could also GET and PUT to the entry resource with headers instead of shoving it into the body. I'm kind of worried we'll end up tunelling a bunch of RPC stuff in the pub: namespace.

Robert Sayre