RE: [Simple] Update to xcap package

[hisham.khartabil at nokia.com]

You can probably indicate the position of the insertion using the xpath like expression. Something like:

PUT http://document/foo/bar[@id="3 and 3"]

<bar id="3"/>

or

PUT http://document/foo/bar[@id="3 and position()=3"]

<bar id="3"/>

Valid xpath expressions, but not sure if they are valid http URIs.

/Hisham

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com]
> Sent: 22.February.2004 10:23
> To: Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP-MSW/Helsinki)
> Cc: CBoulton@ubiquity.net; simple@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Update to xcap package
> 
> 
> 
> inline.
> 
> hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message----- From: ext Jonathan Rosenberg
> >> [mailto:jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com] Sent: 19.February.2004 06:48 To:
> >> Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP-MSW/Helsinki) Cc: CBoulton@ubiquity.net;
> >> simple@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Simple] Update to xcap package
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> I had the use case in my mind that if we have a list that is
> >>> shared amongst 100 or even 10000 employees and one modifies it,
> >>> then this will result in 100 NOTIFYs. Each then might generate a
> >>> GET.
> >> 
> >> OK.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Also for a conference using XCAP, it might be true that there is
> >>> one creator, but there could be many privileged users who have
> >>> read rights and can subscribe to the changes in the conference
> >>> policy.
> >>> 
> >>> I'm not sure if the cost of sending the changes in a NOTIFY as 
> >>> opposed to just sending the etag is so great.
> >> 
> >> One thing we need to figure out is the format for the NOTIFY. WHats
> >> in the event package at the moment won't work, because there are 
> >> many valid results that can be obtained from applying the xcap
> >> operations to a document.
> > 
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by saying that 
> many valid
> > results can be obtained. Can you elaborate?
> 
> Sorry for being unclear on it.
> 
> Lets say I have a document like this:
> 
> <foo>
>    <bar id="1"/>
>    <bar id="2"/>
> </foo>
> 
> and I do an xcap addition operation:
> 
> PUT http://document/foo/bar[@id="3";]
> 
> <bar id="3"/>
> 
> 
> XCAP requires that the server create this element such that a 
> GET to the 
> same URI returns the same body. However, there are three ways 
> that the 
> server could do such an insertion and still meet that definition:
> 
> <foo>
>    <bar id="3"/>
>    <bar id="1"/>
>    <bar id="2"/>
> </foo>
> 
> OR
> 
> <foo>
>    <bar id="1"/>
>    <bar id="3"/>
>    <bar id="2"/>
> </foo>
> 
> OR
> 
> <foo>
>    <bar id="1"/>
>    <bar id="2"/>
>    <bar id="3"/>
> </foo>
> 
> 
> The current xcap-package includes a hash in the notify, to allow the 
> client to match what they did against what the server has. I believe 
> that, in this hash, ordering of elements and attributes is 
> signficiant. 
> As a result, the hash computed by the server might not match the one 
> computed by the client, since both client and server did the insert 
> separately.
> 
> A different "diff" format can be defined which is more precise about 
> where the server did the insertion. For any element, specifying its 
> parent and previous sibling is sufficient. If we want the 
> hash to remain 
> in the notifications, we'd need to define a format like that.
> 
> Hope this clarifies.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
> Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
> dynamicsoft
> jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple