Wang,Weiming wrote:
In some way, you may call it a thought of relative path. My view is actually
from following thought:
1. A single path is not enough for an operation. In some cases, we may need to
assign several paths for an single operation, e.g., we may at the same time
need to set value to 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 where 3 and 4 are field IDs for the same
table. We may also possibly need to set 1.1 in the same operation.
So why don't we support multiple times "path+data" under the same
LFBSelect ?
2. It's quite unnecessary we may set different Attributes in one single
operation, therefore the AttrID part is always the same.
I am not sure about this.
Based on above, I think that:
1. It may be very complex to have one specific 'path' in one 'path' format to
express the actual paths like 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 and 1.1 simulteneously , but it
would be much simpler to have Data field to express it, like the data format as:
subpath(1.2.3) value, subpath(1.2.4) value, subpath(1.1) value
Instead, take these subpaths out of the data part, and make normal
paths out of them. That's doable if we decide to support multiple
"path+data" under the same LFBSelect.
2. for all subpaths, the head AttrID part is the same, and this is also the only
part that are the same.
Therefore, my thought is the AttrID part is defined in the protocol, leaving the
subpath go along with the data.
I would prefer to have the whole path in the "path", not mixing the
subpath and the data. That sounds to me like a cleaner design. Note
that this was the consensus in the room after the presentation. But if
you have other arguments that would favor the "subpath going into the
data", please share them with us.
Regards,
-Robert
i.e you say parent-path=1,2,3,4 then everything else is relative to
that.
The only possible common parent path is the Attribute ID.
Example if you say 5 afterwards for relative path, then the full path
is: 1,2,3,4,5.
I still dont think that "5" should be in the data portion though.
When we have more than one subpath that should be expressed, you may see the
necessity for this.
Cheers,
Weiming
cheers,
jamal
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 22:33, Wang,Weiming wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much to bring the slides to the meeting.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Haas
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the
options for LFB-level multicast]
All,
I presented Weiming's slides just after Jamal's presentation
yesterday. No divergence of views on the principle of how to
describe paths was found.
Whereas, according to his slides, Weiming considers that the
distinction of Attribute, field, and index, must be reflected
in the path notation, the consensus in the room was that this
is not necessary: a path could be x.y.z, where it is clear
that x must be an attribute, and y and z can be field or
index. No need to mention it explicitely in the path notation.
[Weiming] Actually this is not the key point. While I'm just a
little afraid it may lead to ambiguity if , e.g., z can be a
field ID or a subscript without tag to indicate it.
The path can be constructed with index-search or
content-search. The consensus in the room was that the path
should include the whole thing, not only the first attribute,
as opposed to Weiming's suggestion on the last slide.
[Weiming]This is really the key point. We need to verify if it
is possible for a single 'path' format to describe all need
for path. I just think that, apart from the attribute ID part,
others are tightly combined with Data. We may feel difficulty
to try to separate path explicitly.
Content-search remains to be defined more precisely, as well
as block access. So it is too early to disagree ;-)
Regards,
-Robert
Thank you again.
Weiming
Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Jamal,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi at znyx.com>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 00:12, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> >
> > > Jamal,
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi at znyx.com>
> > > To: "Weiming Wang" <wmwang at mail.hzic.edu.cn>
> > >
> > >
> > > > I still dont see what where we have differences. If Robert
can see that
> > > > difference i think it would be worth presenting it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I don't think it's very proper for you to try to
stop an
> > >
>
> individual
>
> > > presentation :)
> > >
> >
> > The first step is to understand what you are trying to show.
> > Look at how many emails it took for you to say "i see the
difference".
> >
>
> Sorry, I know the difference very well, just can not see why you
cannot catch
> it. That's just the 'i see the difference' mean.
>
> Cheers,
> Weiming
>
>
> > So i am not trying to stop your presentation rather trying to
understand
> > what you are saying. Let me go back and read your other email
now.
> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
> > PS:- Everyone i have talked to here upto before i went to bed
did not
> > see any difference. This includes Robert.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
--
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha
|
