Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future
Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Fri, 16 July 2010 18:08 UTC
Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id DD9AC3A6AC7 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ihrPYbTmPRd for
<vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f172.google.com (mail-px0-f172.google.com
[209.85.212.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38C23A6A61 for
<vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so1398835pxi.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>;
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from
:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=M1hrAS5Uj7U4XXtqtxXr3eaSfbc0JZ212dt7IQ05itA=;
b=OZ6HLD+5+JW17G9dEkcafJWLfBDmFDQu3C5Gl1MiU4KVaAMM2YX+FESdHSmHJq3pdh
6OmJWwlWuITTkE2gDFktI4wo8yAiZe/RbscbNPZtxT+oZuJXAUAvfft4Q3LpoHra8DAN
/PDvxRAYoOjIjtj4X5hcH1TmZJghrWqbgv+sQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
b=TEd3h8w/sST9OC6AB6ClpgmU2k6/MBwADW9oMjOdhg50cewEMQsha9Ke/l58btW9uN
3srQL0xunSnpu66Sk47n3Z4Qew7QbpLkbWOSzl4If0muxyTV9F4ZoE/JV5GrcWNnDiMU
6z95Uu4ANHMFHFY9C37blbDN/BIfvNEFVW9k4=
Received: by 10.114.15.2 with SMTP id 2mr2087559wao.67.1279303731700;
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-69-105-197-115.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net
[69.105.197.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
q6sm25584483waj.22.2010.07.16.11.08.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C40A30F.30404@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:21:03 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimqzIaVbirYFQc7LAb-u2BJF7UEy9oODznstg7z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikmHb43MLmgEdXegTteLoz6oaqLJjNDSncZTBxT@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTilBdc3PYb3-v2PSjMISzDLpdKmz57GStiUssElE@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilBdc3PYb3-v2PSjMISzDLpdKmz57GStiUssElE@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group
<vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>,
<mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>,
<mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:08:41 -0000
Meadhbh Hamrick wrote: > my motivation here is to identify unsolicited messages. Good idea since that is the basic message until they are identified as solicited. One step away from the transport protocol, there are three main flows noticed in ReST design: simple queries, complex queries, and task(lets). Of those three, I said flow because of the direction of data expected: unidirectional, bidirection, and only internal. The GET method is comparable to a simple query. The POST method is comparable to a complex query, especially if it expect further processing after HTTP_OK|HTTP_ACCEPTED status. Tasks are pretty much the core type that are abstracted into these other types described above and in related thread. Yes, being able to describe or abstract from these basics I think is more desirable than than worry about PUT, DELETE, etc. Those extra details that are complex and don't let us easily bridge the digital gap, one needed to cross in order to explain to users how to basically extend VWRAP.
- [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] thinking about LLIDL and the future Dzonatas Sol