[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: BYSETPOS: Fresh start



Re point 1 - it is a rare case - but in theory a BYHOUR rule could generate a variable number of hours twice a year (i.e. the two days a year for locations with Daylight Savings that do not have 24 hours) Even more obscurely, BYSECONDS could for the moments of leap seconds (but this is unlikely to managed by most systems in any case)
 
Also a BYMONTHDAY or a BYYEARDAY could generate a variable number of values for a FREQ:YEAR due to leap years (i.e. some years have more instances of MONTHDAY=29, or YEARDAY=366. Though rules with this would be rather silly.
 
Also a slightly complex case, but one that the standard is designed to allow: if you vary the WKST setting - then rules with weekly rules or a BYWEEKNO are applied could have variable results for a given FREQ of either MONTHLY or YEARLY.
 
(to quote the standard on what WKST does)
 
    The WKST rule part specifies the day on which the workweek starts.
       Valid values are MO, TU, WE, TH, FR, SA and SU. This is significant
       when a WEEKLY RRULE has an interval greater than 1, and a BYDAY rule
       part is specified. This is also significant when in a YEARLY RRULE
       when a BYWEEKNO rule part is specified. The default value is MO.
 
Hope this helps bring to light some other cases with variable result sets.
 
Shannon
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:44 AM
To: Jonathan Lennox
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
Subject: BYSETPOS: Fresh start


Ok, Im totally overwhelmed by the backlog of WG traffic that I filed away so Im going to take a fresh start at this BYSETPOS concept again to see if I can summarize the latest thoughts on it.  Here are my takes on how things stand with BYSETPOS based on emails and phone calls.

1: BYSETPOS is only of real use when the data set from the recurrence rule has a variable amount of data (ie: "All the Thursdays in the Month")  For ALL other cases the recurrence rule can easily be rewritten to just select those desired data points.  So I would agree that some prose in the updated draft could reflect this and possibly even mandate that BYSETPOS is only used for rules that generate variable sets of data.  That is to say, in a FREQ=WEEKLY;BYDAY=MO,WE,FR rule that a BYSETPOS=2 on that should just cause the rule to be simplified down to FREQ=WEEKLY;BYDAY=WE.  

  As far as we've seen so far, the only rule that will generate a variable length data set is the FREQ=MONTHLY;BYDAY=[MO,TU,WE,TH,FR,SA,SU] so this should not be that great an impact going forwards.  Anyone know of other cases?

2: The concern about ~31M data points is orthogonal to the BYSETPOS issue since all the BYxxx subcomponents on a FREQ=DAILY rule w/o a BYSETPOS can generate that large data set size.  As such it is unclear to me (at this late hour at least) why they are considered llinked.

3: iTIP / iCalendar define the use of REQUEST-STATUS properties to back application level statuses like "Grammar too complex", "Unsupported RRULE subcomponent", etc.  Why cant this same kind of mechanism be reused in CPL when a rule uses a BYSETPOS or generates a data set too large for O(1) evaluation?

4: Much of the bitter back and forth seems to focus on very extreme cases (ie: "bombing" CS/CPL servers) rather than on the 'normal' usages that the vast majority of installations will deal with on a regular basis.  Sure we have to deal with some DOS or other maliscious kinds of activity at various levels of design bug I suspect that these fringe cases have distracted us from the real technical work.  
  So how about we refocus on the items above or if I left any off that we put them on the plate anew and try to get on the same page. I talked w/Tom (Robert) today before dinner and he seemed to think that we were all in basic agreement about how recurrence grammars get expanded.  If this is not quite accurate then Im willing to try and restart that again too.

Time to get some sleep...

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...