Re: ISSUE-58: the simple solution to inlined membership - ISSUE-45

Hi Henry,

Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 05/18/2013 01:09:02 PM:

> ...
> I was just arguing for POST as a method to append, because my feeling is 
that
> our not having PATCH means that peeople want all interactions to 
> happen in the LDPC,

Having just caught up with the mailing list, just back from Rio, I have to 
say that I'm confused about where you're going with all this.

It seems that you are associating inlining with appending and I don't 
understand that at all. The whole point of being able to inline member 
resources is to give clients more info than just the list of members from 
the get-go.

Richard rightfully pointed out at the face to face meeting that it would 
be better to let the client know if that was all there was to know about 
the resources.

I thought it would be an easy addition and it hasn't been. So, you could 
argue that to save time we should just leave that out for now - it could 
be added later - but I don't see why we should throw the whole thing out 
for that matter.

> where I think it could be that we can get all our use cases solved 
> by just linking
> LDPRs intelligently. I was just hoping that the idea of POSTing to 
> an LDPR-that-is-not-an-LDPC
> we could move some of the group members to intuit that they can 
> solve their problems
> in a simpler way.

Why are you talking about POSTing in a thread on inlined members?

> 
> Henry
> 
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > dret.
> > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group