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

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