ISSUE: getHubID/getSelfID

[Mark Taylor]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Mark Taylor <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Thomas Boch wrote:
>
>> I don't like the idea of dictating an ID for the hub. It is much cleaner
>>> to have a getHubID method, and this should not put any unbearable
>>> additional burden on hub developers.
>>>
>> I agree with that.
>
> Neither of these is unbearable, but having client-id=0 is a simple way to be
> clear that
> a message is coming-from/going-to the hub without the extra overhead and we
> can
> eliminate the getHubID() method  (I think it PLASTIC this was used to ping a

I guess this is just a matter of aesthetics.  I (and Thomas, from his
comment above) don't like the idea of dictating particular values 
for strings that implementations must use; you don't like the idea of 
having a method in the API which could be eliminated.  We probably 
just need to go with a vote.  Anyone else got an opinion?

> For the client wanting to know that e.g. the app.shutdown Notify is  coming
> from the
> Hub and not Topcat (where the action it takes may be different), they are
> required
> to query the hub for its ID and similarly filter based on the ID if the hub
> messages  have
> any special meaning.

For that particular case, I certainly think that there should be a 
separate MType for "hub shutting down" and "client shutting down",
since you may well be interested (want to subscribe to) one but not
the other.

-- 
Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/