Re: Collection Mirrors

[Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxxxxx>]

* Josh Reed <jareed@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-05-15 00:20]:
> I'm leaning more towards #1 as it allows to fully distribute
> things without a single point of failure. #2 is potentially
> more flexible since you can specify mirrors at the individual
> entry level, but I'm afraid that the feed will become
> needlessly bloated if each entry has 2-3 extra "mirror" links
> for it.

If the entire service is replicated at the mirror, then #1 IMO is
the better approach. It would also be conceivable to do both at
the same time – since expressing that a collection is mirrored
somewhere and expressing that an entry is mirrored somewhere are
orthogonal statements.

I’m just not sure that doing this at the Atompub level is the
right layer to begin with.

> Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone has tackled this issue
> already or if there is a preferred way.

Doubtful that anyone has.

> I'm not expecting other applications to automatically
> understand the mirrors, I just don't want to do anything too
> orthogonal to the spirit of the spec.

I think the mirror link relation already exists and is spelled
`alternate`. :-) (It even happens to be the default `rel` value…)

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>