Subject: RE: [Simple] collection template

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:43:28 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Foti (LMC) [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> is it correct
> to assume that either of the following is correct:
> 
> a) The RLS will send *individual* SUBSCRIBE to all members of 
> all sub-lists
> included in the main resource list created by the user when 
> he SUBSCRIBEs to
> that list.

That would be valid. Of course, the RLS has to know the membership
of all of the sublists to do so.

> b) The RLS can do procedure (a) for 1 or more sub-lists (in 
> the original
> list) but can also send a SUBSCRIBE to another RLS for some 
> sub-lists (in
> the original list). The later RLS can be responsbile for 
> maintaining some
> lists, and in turn will implement procedure (a).   

That would also be valid. The only revision I would make to your
assertion is: "can do procedure (a) for _zero_ or more sublists..."

Finally, the RLS might have complete information about all of
the states involved, in which case it would generate *no*
subscribes to any other node at all.

/a

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:47:38 -0500

inline.

> assertion is: "can do procedure (a) for _zero_ or more sublists..."

There is a caveat though.

When I subscribe to foo.list, this means that every element in the list 
has to be of the foo event package. The assumption of the template is 
that each element of the list is of the package the template is applied to.

But, that breaks apart when you have a list that contains elements from 
different packages. For example, you can't have this:

sip:[email-masked] ->

    sip:[email-masked] [presence package]
    sip:[email-masked] [presence.list package]

What event header value would you use for a SUBSCRIBE to 
[email-masked]? Its not presence.list OR presence.list.list. The 
template approach, right now, requires that IF you have a list that 
points to other lists, the depth of the resulting tree has to be the 
same for each leaf. Practically speaking, that is unrealizable, since 
lists might reside in different domains, and you can't control their 
depth. So, IMHO, the current mechanism, for all intents and purposes, 
rules out recursive lists.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com