[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: create-subscription vs. subscribe
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 04:41:35PM -0500, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> >I agree, but many others think the 'subscribe' model is the
> >most familiar. I am concerned that we might be setting up
> >expectations of feature complexity with this terminology.
>
> Exactly. When I look at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_pattern
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish/subscribe
>
> I don't see a lot of parallels. More strongly, I don't see the fit
> between pub/sub and the unicast world of netconf. We don't have a
> message bus or a broker. We don't have multiple subscriptions. We
> don't have anything one would recognize as a pub/sub system except
> the method names. It can't help but be confusing.
I am confused. What is the "unicast world of netconf"?
I guess your main concern is that you do not like this
C S
| |
| <create-subscription> |
|-------------------------->|
|<--------------------------|
| <rpc-reply> |
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
and instead would like to see this
C S
| |
| <create-subscription> |
|-------------------------->|
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
| <notification> |
|<--------------------------|
| |
|<--------------------------|
| <rpc-reply> |
| |
right? But that is a much more fundamental discussion. For what the
current ID describes, I do believe "subscribe" is the better name.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
(Jacobs University Bremen as of Spring 2007)
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>