> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:44:49 +0100
> Subject: Re: [PubSub] collection node definition
>
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 10:08 -0500, Robin Collier wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> > > I assume you mean generic vs. custom where you talk about open vs.
> > > closed, because we are talking about a protocol here. Even though most
> > > of our specifications go into detail about possible business rules in
> > > implementations, the focus is still about the relation between inputs
> > > and outputs. This is especially true for publish-subscribe.
> > >
> > Actually, I was referring to an open vs. closed system deployment. [..]
> >
> > Personally, I see collections as a simple organizational tool for nodes
> > and I don't think they need to be any more than that. My own messaging
> > background is in the enterprise using JMS, and that spec also allows for
> > such a grouping (hierarchical only), although it is considered optional.
> > (Sidenote: This optional part kind of stinks though since it means you
> > cannot make
> > your code vendor neutral since there is no discovery mechanism for such
> > functionality.)
>
> I think we mean the same thing here. A generic pubsub service is one
> that does not have any application specific logic behind it.
>
> While I understand that one could define how to create node hierarchies
> (the current version of XEP-0248 does that), and there is prior art, I
> am questioning the actual usefulness of it.
>
> Again, real-world use cases would help here. Without such justification,
> collections, as currently defined, are a waste of time. I find it too
> complex, even though it is theoretically feasible.
>
I had a use case for it at a former job. In fact, it will probably get used
at some point in the future when the functionality we did implement
evolves. We just didn't need it for the initial implementation and I was
also not eager to use it since the spec was in the experimental stage. The
functionality provided by both pubsub and collection nodes was an excellent
match for the business requirements we had for the current and future
releases.
I guess I find it hard to understand how you would think that creating
a hierarchy for dissemination of information would not be useful in real
world situations when so many business operations, beaurocracies and
countless other things are organized in such a fashion.
>
> ralphm
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on
Facebook.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691816
