If you are going to implement it anyway, please feel free to contribute the patch. We'll evaluate it as a community to understand the impact. If it doesn't impact performance much, we'll probably take it. I agree that slpv2bis is not slpv2, however, we've planned to do other bis features, such as mesh-enhanced slp in v2 at some point. But please do submit the patch - I'm open to new features, as long as the issues and concerns are managed properly.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:13 AM > To: John Calcote > Cc: OpenSLP Devel Mailing List > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > Hi John, > > I can understand the reason for not supporting it. But, jSLP and Sun support > it. > > I can't find a formal RFC to drop the feature as well. Do you mind if we as a > contributor for this feature? > > Ren > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 1:26 PM > To: Wang, Ren > Cc: OpenSLP Devel Mailing List > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > Hi Ren, > > After a scan of the mailing list archives for the srvloc project on sf.net, I found > the following message submitted by Matt Peterson: > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=3209418 > > This message explains the rationale behind disabling incremental service > registration and deregistration. I agree with Matt's assessment and feel that > we should keep the code as is - incremental service registration is not > supported in OpenSLP because using it overtaxes the SLP protocol. If you > need incremental registration and deregistration, perhaps you should > consider using LDAP instead of SLP. > > Any comments are appreciated (from anyone). > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:09 AM > > To: 'Wang, Ren' > > Cc: OpenSLP Devel Mailing List (openslp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net) > > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > (Adding devel list back in so others can chime in if they have input) > > > > Hi Ren, > > > > Ok - I was correct in my understanding then - I thought I understood > > that > you > > wanted incremental registrations. My original reply to you was that > > the entire concept of incremental registrations appears to be > > deprecated in slpv2bis, which is the standard that OpenSLP is trying to > follow. > > > > Incremental registrations is controlled by the FRESH flag in SLP > > message headers, and the FRESH flag is required to be set to 1 by > > slpv2bis. What I > > *don't* know is why. I don't see any explanation anywhere of why this > > flag was deprecated and required to be set to 1 in message headers. I > > presume that Matt Peterson disabled the use of the boolean fresh field > > in the > SLPReg > > api in order to support the deprecation of incremental registrations. > > > > In this document: http://srvloc.sourceforge.net/compatibility.html the > fresh > > flag is listed under the SLPv2 column as: > > > > "When this flag is present in a SrvReg, this registration overwrites > > any existing registration with the same URL. When this flag is absent, > > a > SrvReg will > > incrementally add to an existing registration." > > > > And under the slpv2bis column as: > > > > "As RFC 2608, except that the Fresh Flag MUST be set on registrations. > > If > not, > > return a FRESH_MUST_BE_SET error?" (The error code to be returned was > > properly defined after this document was created.) > > > > In other words, since the current implementation of OpenSLP tries to > > support SLPv2bis as closely as possible, we've disabled incremental > > registration by ignoring the Boolean fresh argument passed to SLPReg > > and hard-coding the FRESH flag in the SrvReg message header to 1. Note > > that > this > > flag is not a tri-state - the field is always present, and must be > > either > 1 or 0. At > > certain places in the documents referenced on this thread, it appears > > that the flag may be present or not, and if present it must be 1 and > > may not be zero. The flags word is always present, and the FRESH flag > > is hard-coded > to a > > particular position in this word, so it must be present, and must be > > set > to 1. > > Since setting this flag to 1 means the registration is fresh, the > registration will > > overwrite any existing registration. > > > > Once again, I don't know why this was done - no documents I've been > > able > to > > find on the topic seem to indicate the rationale or discussion of the > issue that > > caused the change. If anyone on the list knows, please chime in. > > > > Please understand Ren, that I'm not against incremental refresh - if I > > understood the rationale begin removing it, I would be able to make an > > intelligent decision about whether to follow the standard in this area. > Since I > > don't know why it was deprecated, I have only the wording of the > > standard to go by. If you can find any documentation on the net as to > > why it was removed in the first place, I'd appreciate your insight. > > > > John > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:21 AM > > > To: John Calcote > > > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > What we are looking for is to support incremental service registrations. > > > > > > For example, if there is a service registered with attribute > > > (user_id= Ren), and later a new user added to the service, so the > > > increment registration will call SLPReg with attr (user_id=John) and > > > fresh flag set to false to indicate it is an incremental > > > registration. In the registry, the service should have attribute > (user_id=Ren, John). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:13 AM > > > To: Wang, Ren > > > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > > > I'm sorry Ren, I still don't understand what you're after. Please > > > forgive my incomprehension - if you could explain exactly what you > > > want to use the fresh flag for and why, then perhaps I'd understand > > > what you're asking. I was simply explaining why it's currently > implemented > > (or not) the way it is. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:07 AM > > > > To: john.calc...@gmail.com > > > > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > Thank you again for your response and the URLs. > > > > > > > > Maybe my question was not clear to you, but I was trying to ask if > > > > OpenSLP will support fresh=false instead of not set the fresh flag. > > > > On you second > > > URL, > > > > page 6, it says "FRESH" MUST be set to 1 on every SrvReg. > > > > Otherwise, > > > MUST > > > > be 0." > > > > > > > > Since current OpenSLP implementation does not support 0 for SrvReg. > > > > Based on the OpenSLP.org, "Currently, OpenSLP does not support > > > > incremental registrations. If fresh is SLP_FALSE, SLPReg() will > > > > return SLP_NOT_IMPLEMENTED." > > > > > > > > This is why I want to know if you plan to support it. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ren > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 6:37 PM > > > > To: Wang, Ren > > > > Cc: openslp-us...@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > > > > > Hi Ren, > > > > > > > > The FRESH flag was deprecated after RFC 2608 was published. > > > > > > > > See: > > > > > > > > http://srvloc.sourceforge.net/new_drafts/draft-guttman-svrloc-as-00. > > > > tx > > > > t > > > > http://srvloc.sourceforge.net/new_drafts/draft-guttman-svrloc-rfc2 > > > > 60 > > > > 8b > > > > is- > > > > 01. > > > > txt > > > > > > > > In the first document it states on page 3 that an error > > > > (INVALID_UPDATE) > > > is > > > > returned by the SA/DA for registrations that don't set the FRESH > > > > flag in > > > post > > > > slpv2 implementations (slpv2bis - the second document - pp 6, 7, 21). > > > > The slpv2bis document isn't clear as to why the FRESH flag must be > > > > set > > > > - > > > just > > > > states that it must be set. I presume it's a security issue of > > > > some > kind. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:08 AM > > > > > To: John Calcote > > > > > Cc: openslp-us...@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > > Subject: SLPReg fresh=false > > > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > > > Is there a plan to support fresh=false for SLPReg API? > > > > > > > > > > Since it is a required feature for our project, we may need to > > > > > provide the change to the OpenSLP if there is no short term plan > > > > > to > > > support it. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Ren > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow - 200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts. SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 _______________________________________________ Openslp-devel mailing list Openslp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openslp-devel
