[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix-xml] History Push
We also probably need to consider time changes. What
happens if you change the time backwards, and then you collect more records,
etc...
From: Sublett, John [mailto:jsublett@tridium.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:58 AM To: obix-xml@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [obix-xml] History Push I like requiring sorted
records. Then the server behavior when the incoming records are not sorted
can be left unspecified. A server could choose to accept the out of order
records or ignore some or all of them. Aaron mentioned something yesterday
about the server returning a value indicating what was accepted. Do you
think we need something like that? He specifically suggested returning the
timestamp of the last record that was accepted. From: Richards,
Dave [mailto:drichards@trane.com] Perfect. I
like just ignoring the out-of-order records. Does that mean stopping
at the first one or just ignoring them and continuing with “good” ones?
And I see Brian’s text already required sorted
records. From: Sublett,
John [mailto:jsublett@tridium.com] That’s definitely an
issue. In From: Richards,
Dave [mailto:drichards@trane.com] I like keeping it
simple. Do we want also to make some guarantee about order of
records? Maybe specify that the records are in chronological order and
it’s legal to append all records up to the one that violates the order? Or
just skip out-of-order records? I’m trying to avoid having to buffer and
analyze the entire request prior to processing. Does anyone else think
that’s a potential issue? From: Brian
Frank [mailto:brian.tridium@gmail.com] OK, to keep it drop dead simple we use the term "append"
and say you MUST push only newer data to the History (you can't push anything
with a timestamp before History.end) On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Sublett, John <jsublett@tridium.com>
wrote: That’s a slippery
slope. If we’re going to allow old(er) records to be inserted, do we also
need an update to modify existing records? From: Brian
Frank [mailto:brian.tridium@gmail.com] We decided on our
call yesterday to call the History operation used to push new HistoryRecords
"append". But I'm not liking that term because it implies you can only
append histories to the "end" of the history and that you can't insert older
records. So I'm thinking the
correct term is "insert" and that no restrictions are made with regard to the
timestamps of the new records and the existing
records. The information contained in this message is privileged
and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a
representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying
of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete
the original message and attachments. The information contained in this message is privileged
and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a
representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying
of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete
the original message and
attachments. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]