RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

Does anyone else have an opinion on this, especially if it is different
from what Joel suggested ?
Pls do let us know asap. 

I am fine with this, just want to make sure there are no contradicting
opinions in the Model team.

Thanks
Hormuzd 
P.s. BTW, I don't think I still got a real example on how this would be
useful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jhalpern@MEGISTO.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:20 PM
To: hadi@znyx.com
Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Yang, Lily L; zsolt@petri-meat.com; Steve
Blake; Alan DeKok; Deleganes, Ellen M; ram.gopal@nokia.com;
forces-protocol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

That would be my suggestion.

To be specific, I would not have a Query and a Modify message, but
rather 
would have an Operation message which can carry whatever operations we 
decide we need.  We may make specific rules that say "for sanity, never 
combine X and Y".

I believe this will keep the protocol simpler.

Yours,
Joel

At 08:40 PM 10/15/2004 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>Joel,
>We are sort of in a rush here to beat a deadline ;-> Give it to us in
>boolean logic please ;->
>
>Did i read correctly that since we may have multiple operations (we
have
>been discussing event un/subscribe as something that would appear as an
>operation for example) then the way to go forward is have GET as an
>operation?
>
>cheers,
>jamal
>
>On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 20:11, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > If we are sure that the only two operations we will ever need are
GET and
> > SET, then we could probably simply declare that a message was either
a GET
> > message or a SET message.
> > However, we have had suggestions of INSERT operations, and I would
hate to
> > design the protocol so that we could not add other operations later.
And
> > some combinations of operations may make sense together (insert item
> > A.  Add reference to A in item B.  Delete obsoleted item C.)
> > Thus, I tend to think that it makes sense to structure the protocol
so 
> that
> > a single emssage can carry multiple operations.
> > At the same time, as I said earlier, I would either prohibit or warn
> > against combining update and read operations in the same 
> request.  Requests
> > to read, for example to confirm the results of an update, ought to
be sent
> > separately so that the FE does not need to worry about the order of
> > application.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > At 03:55 PM 10/15/2004 -0700, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
> > >No, I don't that's why I asked...since this was coming from Joel's
> > >proposal.
> > >I didn't get a good reason from his email either, but it seems like
he
> > >would like to have it supported by the protocol anyway.
> > >
> > >Joel, do you have any examples for us ?
> > >
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >Hormuzd
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Yang, Lily L
> > >Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:52 PM
> > >To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; 'Joel M. Halpern'; 'zsolt@petri-meat.com';
> > >'Steven Blake'; 'Alan DeKok'; Deleganes, Ellen M;
'ram.gopal@nokia.com'
> > >Cc: 'forces-protocol@ietf.org'
> > >Subject: RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
> > >
> > >I don't understand why you would want to do such a thing. Do you
have
> > >any example in mind?
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Khosravi, Hormuzd M
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 2:04 PM
> > > > To: Joel M. Halpern; zsolt@petri-meat.com; Steven Blake;
> > > > Yang, Lily L; Alan DeKok; Deleganes, Ellen M;
ram.gopal@nokia.com
> > > > Cc: forces-protocol@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: GET/SET in one msg ?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > We (protocol team) are finalizing some of the msgs and one of
> > > > the issues which is being discussed is whether GET/SET
> > > > operation need to be combined in a single msg...(currently we
> > > > have them as separate msgs). I have never seen this being
> > > > done in practice i.e. command bundling of GET/SET, but if you
> > > > guys have some experience/opinions on this, pls do let us know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot,
> > > > Hormuzd
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forces-protocol mailing list
> > Forces-protocol@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol