Message-id management revisited

[Luigi Paioro]

My 2 cents again: I vote 9.

Cheers,

   Luigi


Mark Taylor ha scritto:
> Everyone,
> 
> We should draw this point to a conclusion, and then I'll post my
> draft of the SAMP doc to this list for final comments before uploading
> it to the IVOA document server as a Working Draft.
> 
> Alasdair has gone quiet for a few days, which I interpret as meaning
> he is prepared to accept my argument (or at least my assertion) that
> none of this will lead to any significant complication for hub 
> implementations, and in particular that no per-message hub state or 
> bookkeeping will be required.
> 
> My summary of the current state of the discussion is that my suggested 
> option:
> 
>    4. hub provides hub-msg-id -> sender-msg-id translation method
> 
> is an acceptable compromise for everyone.  Alasdair and I are also
> OK with
> 
>    9. hub-msg-id is returned from existing call() methods
> 
> (see last part of http://www.ivoa.net/forum/apps-samp/0806/0129.htm).
> I think this is slightly tidier - Mike if you agree I will do 9, 
> otherwise I will do 4.
> 
> I also suggest that I rephrase the wording and API description slightly, 
> so that instead of "sender-msg-id" and "hub-msg-id" we talk instead 
> about a "msg-tag" and a "msg-id".  I think this is less confusing and
> makes more sense, since the hub-generated part is a unique identifier, 
> but the sender-generated part is just a string which the sender 
> associates with the message, which (according to how the sender wants to 
> do it) may or may not be unique.
> 
> Having done this I can add Mike's suggested progress messages (see next 
> post for more detail on this).
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 

Luigi Paioro

INAF - IASF Milano
Via Bassini 15, I-20133 Milano, Italy

Phone  (+39) 02 23 699 470
Fax    (+39) 02 26 660 17
Site   http://www.iasf-milano.inaf.it/