RE: Issue 6432: updated proposal

Doug,
 
if so, that means only in the batch format can mc support timely
delivery of notifications without the added latency compared to the
"unsolicited push" mode.
 
this would work like this:
1) mc request (uuid=xyz)
2) subscribe (notifyto=xyz, format=batch)
3) all notifications sent using the same mc connection, until
4) the subscription terminates
 
i called mc request before subscribe to eleminate the potential delay
caused by the mc request.
 
In a non-batch format, the sink polls the event source at some interval,
so there is a added delay of
T(poll interval) + T(sending mc request) + T(processing of mc request)
 
To reduce the delay, we can make "poll interval" as small as possible
(in fact we can make it zero using the batch format), but the tradeoff
is we occupy more connection resources on the event source.
For this reason, i'm hesitating to merge these two approaches under the
"push" mode.
 
Thanks.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 2:50 PM
To: Li, Li (Li)
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org; Chou, Wu (Wu)
Subject: RE: Issue 6432: updated proposal



Right -that's batching or box-carring.  And if we want to support that I
think we need to define a new Format so it can be used regardless of
whether we're pushing or pulling notifications. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 



"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 


03/23/2009 02:46 PM 


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

cc
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>,
<public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>, "Chou, Wu (Wu)"
<wuchou@avaya.com> 

Subject
RE: Issue 6432: updated proposal

	




Doug, 
  
I meant in one subscription created by mc, is it possible that one mc
request will pull back mutiple queued messages, or is it always one mc
request for one message. 
Suppose there are two messages queued for a subscription, in the first
case we have these messages: 
  
mc request 
msg1 
msg2 
  
in the second case, we can only have 
mc request 
msg1 
mc request 
msg2 
  
thanks. 
  
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:33 PM
To: Li, Li (Li)
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org;
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org; Chou, Wu (Wu)
Subject: Re: Issue 6432: updated proposal


It depends on what you mean by multiple messages.  If you mean
"batching" then sure that can be done but since this could be wanted
even for Push style I think that's best left for the new Format element.
However, this can be very complicated though since some Notifications
could generate faults and its not clear what the processing model would
be.  If you mean "pulling from multiple subscriptions" then yes - you
can do this optimization by using the same MCanonURI in multiple
NotifyTo EPRs. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 


"Li Li" <lli5@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 


03/23/2009 12:34 PM 




To
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 

cc
"Chou, Wu \(Wu\)" <wuchou@exchange.avaya.com> 

Subject
Re: Issue 6432: updated proposal


	





Doug,

The MakeConnection standard suggests that the event sink initiates a
connection for each message. Is it possible that the event sink
initiates a
connection for multiple messages?