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

It makes sense to combine ADD, DEL, UPDATE, etc...we already have this
in our Config msg.
The question is whether you would need a GET operation as part of this
message as well, or it would work better as a separate message...for
e.g., Query msg as we have in the protocol.

Jamal provided a good clarification on this.

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jhalpern@MEGISTO.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 5:12 PM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Yang, Lily L; 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 ?

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