support for RFC 5689

Joe Orton joe at manyfish.co.uk
Thu Jan 19 17:30:05 EST 2012


On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:23:55PM +0100, Ricardo Rocha wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> We have a use case where we would need to pass one or more properties
> at MKCOL time.
> 
> Is support for RFC 5689 something worth adding? We could not find
> support for it in the current implementation. Right now we'll be
> passing the props in the request string, but what is described in the
> RFC seems to suit what we need.

Hi Ricardo - sure, no reason why not.  What kind of API would you use 
for extended MKCOL?  Can pass in a set of propname/value pairs like 
ne_proppatch(), but adding extra resourcetype elements would be slightly 
more involved.  Maybe something like:

   int ne_mkcol_extended(ne_session *sess, char *path,
                         const ne_proppatch_operation *ops,
                         const ne_propname *res_types);

whers opts[0..] passes in additional name/value pairs to set in addition 
to the resourcetype, and res_types[0..] passes in any extra resource 
type element names.  (I'm not very familiar with 5689, if that makes no 
sense, please say so :)

> On the other hand... we would need something similar on PUT, but for
> that i don't think we can get away without having to pass the props on
> the querystring. Any thoughts?

What's the reference to PUT here?

Regards, Joe



More information about the neon mailing list