RE: [SWMP] introducing RPC to an asynchronous protocol

"Tony Parisi" <tparisi@mediamachines.com> Fri, 24 August 2007 17:58 UTC

Return-path: <swmp-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOdQc-0004Ji-1i; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:58:38 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOdQb-0004Jb-6Q for swmp@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:58:37 -0400
Received: from worlds.webers.org ([64.34.168.199] helo=william.mediamachines.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOdQa-0003ZG-Ms for swmp@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:58:36 -0400
Received: from NEO (h-66-134-93-202.snvacaid.covad.net [66.134.93.202]) by william.mediamachines.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC8446404E; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:56:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Tony Parisi" <tparisi@mediamachines.com>
To: "'Jay C. Weber'" <jweber@mediamachines.com>, <john_patterson@us.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [SWMP] introducing RPC to an asynchronous protocol
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:58:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AcfmaAupAYLlUy4rTn+DUXEgauytrgAD05og
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
In-Reply-To: <46CF0160.6020201@mediamachines.com>
Message-Id: <20070824175624.CCC8446404E@william.mediamachines.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ce732c7d36989a1bd55104ba259c40a1
Cc: swmp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: swmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of a Simple Wide-area Multiuser-3D Protocol <swmp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp>, <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/swmp>
List-Post: <mailto:swmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp>, <mailto:swmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1498925729=="
Errors-To: swmp-bounces@ietf.org

If we're talking about an either/or I prefer pub-sub to readback.

 

Tony

 

  _____  

From: Jay C. Weber [mailto:jweber@mediamachines.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:04 AM
To: john_patterson@us.ibm.com
Cc: swmp@ietf.org
Subject: [SWMP] introducing RPC to an asynchronous protocol

 

john_patterson@us.ibm.com wrote:



D)  I believe that swmp will need the full complement of CRUD (create, read,
update, delete) operations.  I think the absence of read methods derived
from the implicit subscription to all state.  Now, that one can subscribe to
some, but not all of the state, I believe it will become desirable to
request the values of unsubscribed state.  This prompted me to add a GETNODE
and a GETFIELD request, which required GETNODEREPLY and GETFIELDREPLY
messages to return the response. 

Interesting, but the danger here is "return the response".  There's a big
advantage to resisting the introduction of RPC-style elements in a context
of minimizing latency -- obviously RPC involves a round-trip of messaging.
Keeping SWMP asynchronous will keep it mapping simply and efficiently onto
datagram transports.

I like the PUB-SUB suggestions you've made, especially because PUB-SUB can
be designed to work well in an asynchronous protocol.

jay

-- 
Jay C. Weber, Ph.D. 
CTO, Media Machines Inc. 
650-279-2311 

_______________________________________________
SWMP mailing list
SWMP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp