Hi John, We started code change based on the latest OpenSLP 2.x source downloaded from the URL https://openslp.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/openslp/trunk.
In order to merge the changes into the stable OpenSLP release code, can you provide the stable source code which used to build the OpenSLP 2.0.0 Beta 2 installer? Or, should we send the code to you to merge into the system? Ren -----Original Message----- From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:29 AM To: Wang, Ren Cc: 'OpenSLP Devel Mailing List' Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false Just write clean code and try to conform the style that appears in the existing code base - for consistency. Nothing written down. --John > -----Original Message----- > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:28 AM > To: John Calcote > Cc: 'OpenSLP Devel Mailing List' > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > John, > > Is there any development guideline or design that we need to > understand and follow for the implementation? > > Ren > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Calcote [mailto:john.calc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 1:40 PM > To: Wang, Ren > Cc: 'OpenSLP Devel Mailing List' > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > 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- > > > > > rf > > > > > c2 > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ Openslp-devel mailing list Openslp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openslp-devel
