remoteStorage

Access control lists


#1

Let’s continue discussing this in here…


Features app developers really really need
#2

@michielbdejong @raucao

I think I misunderstood the original post by @michielbdejong (Features app developers really really need). I think all the features are things that are somewhere on the horizon, but I didn’t realize this was for this draft of the spec.

The reason I misunderstood is because I don’t think anyone at Unhost this past September said we need ACLs in the next draft of the spec, at least I don’t remember that being the discussion. There’s a lot of thought that would need to go into that before we considered drafting a spec or adding it to the existing one.

So when you brought it up I assumed you were saying, in general, which features are things we should consider down the road. To which I said all of them. As for what should go in the current upcoming draft of the spec, I think the minor additions have already been discussed at length both during the conference and afterward. Draft-dejong-remotestorage-02 txt

Anywho, I’m still up for discussing & exploring the idea of ACLs in remoteStorage here, if anyone has anything to add. @michielbdejong Do you actually want to discuss ACLs, or did you only bring it up to add things to the list of requests made to change the spec (to make it sound like there were tons of requests made for immediate additions to the spec)? Or do you have some other thoughts on the topic?


#3

yeah i agree there’s not enough time to do ACLs in this spec, would have to be the next one then, if anybody is interesting in picking it up.

for this spec, i created two versions, one official ‘base’ functionality, and an alternative version which people can implement if they’re interested. i only added the filesizes feature, though. not the other three.


#4

But, aren’t the HEAD requests an expected behavior of HTTP?


#5

Yes, but please don’t discuss that in the ACL topic.