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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com> Sat, 16 October 2004 01:36 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13813 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:36:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CIdfr-0002vi-A9 for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:47:59 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CIdQF-0001Ea-5Y; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:31:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CIdG1-0007Uj-IR for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:21:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA12856 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [64.254.114.114] (helo=megisto-e2k.megisto.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CIdRI-0002fh-3p for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:33:09 -0400
Received: from JLaptop.megisto.com ([192.168.20.227]) by megisto-e2k.megisto.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:20:44 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20041015211901.02301680@mail.megisto.com>
X-Sender: jhalpern@mail.megisto.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:20:07 -0400
To: hadi@znyx.com
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@MEGISTO.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?
In-Reply-To: <1097887251.1042.28.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20041015200825.02301940@mail.megisto.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20041015200825.02301940@mail.megisto.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2004 01:20:44.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C155830:01C4B31E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, zsolt@petri-meat.com, "Yang, Lily L" <lily.l.yang@intel.com>, Steve Blake <slblake@petri-meat.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@idt.com>, Ellen M Deleganes <ellen.m.deleganes@intel.com>
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a8a20a483a84f747e56475e290ee868e

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