On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Erick Calder wrote: > > poe://session@/event > > I like poe://session/event but agree that [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes more sense > than [EMAIL PROTECTED] however I don't think session@ is necessary since > poe:://kernel/event would make no sense anyway.
I understand there's a desire to use POE for applications distributed across several processes. Up to now, the method for determining which process a session exists within has been to specify a Kernel ID in the event name. For example: kernel/session/event - fully-qualified sample event name session/event - for events within the current kernel event - for events within the current session I objected to poe://session/event based on that assumption. It seemed that "session" would need to move between the URI's host and path parts. That would be a proprietary change to an established standard, which is just wrong no matter how convenient. If I understand your proposal correctly, however, you're not suggesting we break URI semantics at all. You might be suggesting the elimination of a kernel field entirely. That seems possible as long as there's some way to map sessions to network nodes. The kernel field would be implied by the session, and the URI semantics are preserved. I withdraw my objection if that's the case. -- Rocco Caputo - http://poe.perl.org/
