Re: Issue 6432: updated proposal

Li and Doug (and others, of course)
Is there a set of requirements for an acceptable queueing mechanism?
Is it that there are queuing behavior issues that are distinct from  
the non-addressable client requirement issues?
What sort of behavior is required?
Does MC meet those requirements or not?
thanks
-bob

On Mar 23, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Li, Li (Li) wrote:

> Doug,
> That is a useful feature that can eliminate poll intervals if the  
> events arrive at a steady rate relative to the poll rate, i.e. when  
> you poll the i-th notification, the (i+k)-th notification already  
> arrived to make pending=true. For an event series that does not  
> behave this way, when does the next poll happen if a poll returns  
> pending=false? If we poll immediately to ignore the flag, the next  
> event may not arrive for sometime (so we waste some connection); if  
> we wait as implied by the MC spec (to save connection), we increase  
> the chance of delay.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Li
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:30 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
>
>
> Li,
>   if you look at the MC spec there's a "MessagePending" header that  
> can be used to indicate that the event sink should poll immediately  
> when more messages are pending.
>
> 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>
> 03/23/2009 03:42 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,
>
> 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?
>
>
>