Re: [ogpx] An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Web Capabilities

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

I think it might be better to separate capability and the hostname
of the url. That is, if you are passed:

http://db33.example.com/foo/?5923828591293879468287348955

then the capability should be "foo/?5923828591293879468287348955".

In particular, an capability url

http://db33.example.com/foo/?5923828591293879468287348955

and

http://db34.example.com/foo/?5923828591293879468287348955

should be garanteed to be the same capability.

The main reason for this idea is because I'm worried about
unreachable hosts, or the lifetime that capabilities need
to be kept alive.

Now assume that a client knows that it can choose from
a pool of hostnames for a given capability (ie, the two
above), then a problem might occur if access of the
capability is supposed to change a state. For example,
it cannot be allowed to use the same capability twice;
then accessing both hosts at the same time still needs
to result in the access of a single database.

Do you think the hostname has to be fixed? Would the
above idea have too great disadvantages?

-- 
Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>