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

[Zsolt Haraszti <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 10:50, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > * EV_S (subscribe to an event defined in PATH-DATA }
> > > * EV_U (unsubscribe to an event defined in PATH-DATA }
> > 
> > An alternative to EV_S/U would be to model this via special
> > LFB attributes, i.e., a ADD-ing/DEL-eting entries in a
> > subscription table, modeled as an ARRAY attribute of the
> > respective LFB.  Then there is no need for a separate
> > operations.
> 
> The assumption here is the model team will have events defined as
> attributes (on a per LFB basis).
> For the same semantical reasons as having a query being a separate type,
> I think that the events should be separate operation. This also helps so
> that if i am running a sniffer/debuger I could easily tell it is an
> event vs other attributes.

I was talking about the subscribe/un-subscribe messages.

The actual asynchronous event notification should indeed be a
separate PL type, as Steve called it out by EVENT.

/zsolt


_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol