> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:28:37 -0700
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PubSub] collection node definition
>
> 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.
>
Looks like a good approach to me. I believe both have their place.
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691815
