Ren, If you're making changes to send back to us, I recommend you just clone the sf.net openslp mercurial repo and use the tip of default.
If you want the code in openslp 2.0 beta2, do the same thing, but "hg update -r 2.0.beta2" to update your work area to the code used for that release. (If you want to know what tags are in the repo, run "hg tags".) I'm not sure what your goal is, so I gave you both options. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Wang, Ren [mailto:ren.w...@nuance.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:55 PM > To: John Calcote > Cc: 'OpenSLP Devel Mailing List' > Subject: RE: SLPReg fresh=false > > 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
