On 17/01/07, Kim van der Riet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:11 +0000, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> Are you saying we will not support those parts of 0-9 which are also in 0-8
> (i.e. Basic, File and Stream)?
>
> As far as I understand it, those are still in the spec although marked as
> likely to be replaced. If we are claiming spec compliance should we not
> still support these classes for the moment? If spec compliance is not our
> goal (i.e. we are really anticipating a later version of the spec where
> these elements have been removed) we should be clear about that. On other
> threads we have been quite reluctant to get "ahead of the spec".
>
> - Rob
IIRC, there are some difficulties in supporting both at the same time -
issues that the protocol does not resolve. For example, framing: When a
ProtocolInitiation is received by the broker, how does it know whether
to use the new request/response framing or old MethodBody frame to send
the Connection.Start method?
I thought the ProtocolInitialisation was used to negotiate the version
for the connection so it would know what versions it supported. If it
supported both it would return the correct frame MethodBody or
Connection.Start if it didn't support the version presented it would
just close the Connection.
However, your question on how we label an implementation that supports
only 0-9 WIP is valid. It cannot be strictly 0-9 compliant, so perhaps
we should call it 0-9-WIP compliant instead.
Kim
--
Martin Ritchie
