-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marko A. Rodriguez Sent: 09/28/2009 5:56 PM To: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Linked Process Protocol
NOTE: Josh and I are reviewing Ad-Hoc commands as that may fit our scenario, but as we see it now, it doesn't make sense to ride Linked Process atop of IO-Data. Please comment if you believe what I'm saying is in error or lacking in reason. Take care, Marko. http://markorodriguez.com ------------------------------------ The IO Data XEP already has definitions and an extensible framework for everything you are trying to do, and more. I think if you tried to implement a non-trivial instance of Linked Process you would find that you would need the facilities of IO-DATA. This includes support for asynch errors, job status, job cancel, synchronous and asynchronous jobs, schemata discovery. Also, will you expand on your "manage bindings" concept? I am not sure why this is treated as a special case, with full schemata support as well. To me the stanzas: <iq from="[email protected]/villein" to="[email protected]/farm" type="get" id="yyyy"> <manage_bindings xmlns="http://linkedprocess.org/2009/06/Farm#"; vm_id="62F4E464"> <binding name="age"/> </manage_bindings> </iq> and <iq from="[email protected]/villein" to="[email protected]/farm" type="get" id="yyyy"> <submit_job xmlns="http://linkedprocess.org/2009/06/Farm#"; vm_id="62F4E464"> age; </submit_job> </iq> are functionally equivalent. Thanks
