On 11/19/09 4:12 PM, Andy Skelton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11/19/09 1:54 PM, Andy Skelton wrote: >>> Next up, a request on behalf of publishers. If the publisher is not >>> allowed to determine the version, shouldn't it at least be able to >>> learn the resulting version when it publishes, modifies, or retracts >>> an item? >> Yes. That would be in the notification, as above. > > I saw that there but it didn't seem enough. The notification goes out > to subscribers. Publishers are not necessarily subscribers. The > relationships are orthogonal.
Publishers always receive notifications (or do by default). > The publish IQ (A) changes a state (S -> S') and then gets a response > (A'). Say a publisher needs to know the state S' resulting from A. The > natural way to return this new state is via A'. Subscribing to > notifications (N) allows the publisher to learn about each new S but > to say that A caused S' because N(S') followed A is a leap of > inference and a heap of extra logic. > > Can we please just return the new version in the IQ response? :-) We can do that, too. > p.s. I don't have a use case where the publisher needs to know its > versions. I just think it's the right thing to do. I agree that it's the Right Thing[tm]. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
