On 11/23/09 2:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 11/23/09 12:22 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Robin Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> Collections as I see them are really just abstractions of content-based >>>> pubsub systems (hi Bob Wyman!), where you basically assign a fixed name >>>> (node identifier) to a particular query into the notification plasm. I >>>> am still interested in explicitly defining the minimally subscribe-able >>>> unit (like a blog post), so I want to to pass along a specific node from >>>> where a notification originates, though. >>> That is an interesting concept, correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds >>> an awful lot like a view in a relational database. I am not sure if I would >>> consider this to be a collection though, it seems to me like another concept >>> which would be better called an aggregation node. I guess I would >>> distinguish them by defining a collection node as a collection of nodes, >>> whereas >>> an aggregation node is a collection of items from multiple nodes. >> When I read this thread, I'm left thinking that we've got two things, >> collections as they're currently known, and pesudo-nodes, or >> node-as-codes, or cold-nosed-bodes, or whatever. I'm not actively >> writing these systems, though, so I'm not sure. Can anyone say that we >> definitely do, or definitely don't need to distinguish between the two >> types? > > We do seem to have a bit of a disconnect here. I'd like to either bridge > the gap between collections and "node-as-code" or decide that there > really are two separate things here. Right now I lean to the latter.
It seems that it's time to make an executive decision. I've had a chance to read the complete thread about collection nodes. Andy Skelton's description of node-as-code in use at WordPress.com is compelling. It works for them, and seems to work well. Brian Cully's description of collection nodes in use at OnSip.com is also compelling. It works for them, and seems to work well. Because both approaches seem to work well, I'm leaning even more heavily to the conclusion that both are equally viable, and that they might even be solving different problems. I see no harm in allowing the collection node work to proceed and pursuing improvements to XEP-0248. Therefore I propose to make Brian a co-author of XEP-0248 so that he can move it forward with help from me since I am one of the authors. Ralph Meijer is also a co-author of XEP-0248 but it seems that he might not want to keep working on it (since he now seems to prefer the node-as-code approach). Again, that's fine, and even if Ralph doesn't want to keep contributing to XEP-0248 we'd keep him on as a co-author. Perhaps in the future we'll decide to find a bridge between collection nodes and node-as-code, but right now I think there's no objective basis for picking one over the other, so I think we need to pursue both in parallel and see where they lead. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
