Re: CAP 10: CREATE Command and ordering of responses.

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Andrea replied on 01/23/2003 11:35:04 AM:
> By the way, this same argument holds for VQUERY with multiple QUERY
> properties: see 6.1.1 item 5.

Yes, thanks you.  

> OTOH and for completeness sake: we can't take
your argument to the
> extreme, in some cases we do need to mandate ordering. See results
> for CREATE - if results aren't in the same order as the components,
> the CUA won't be able to correlate them.

Huh??  Sure it can.  From
the draft-10 12-Jan-2003:

In the following example two new top level "VAGENDA"
components are created. [Snip, snip]

C: Content-Type: text/calendar
C:
C: BEGIN:VCALENDAR
C: PRODID:-//someone's prodid
C: VERSION:2.0
C: CMD;ID=creation01:CREATE
C: TARGET:cal.example.com
C: BEGIN:VAGENDA                
<- data for 1st new calendar
C: CALID:relcalz1
C: NAME;LANGUAGE=en_US:Bill's Soccer Team
C: OWNER:bill
C: CALMASTER:mailto:bill@xxxxxxxxxxx
C: TZID:US/Pacific
C: END:VAGENDA
C: BEGIN:VAGENDA                
<- data for 2nd new calendar
C: CALID:relcalz2
C: NAME;LANGUAGE=EN-us:Mary's personal calendar
C: OWNER:mary
C: CALMASTER:mailto:mary@xxxxxxxxxxx
C: TZID:US/Pacific
C: END:VAGENDA
C: END:VCALENDAR

[Snip, snip]

S: Content-Type: text/calendar
S:
S: BEGIN:VCALENDAR
S: VERSION:2.0 
S: PRODID:-//someone's prodid
S: CMD;ID=creation01:REPLY
S: TARGET:cal.example.com
S: BEGIN:VREPLY                
   <- Reply for 1st calendar create
S: CALID:relcalz1
S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
S: END:REPLY
S: BEGIN:VREPLY                
   <- Reply for 2nd calendar create
S: CALID:relcalz2
S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
S: END:VREPLY
S: END:VCALENDAR

In this case, the CALID's are in separate
VREPLYs that can easily be used by the CUA to match up the reponse.  The
CS could just as easily have returned:

S: Content-Type: text/calendar
S:
S: BEGIN:VCALENDAR
S: VERSION:2.0 
S: PRODID:-//someone's prodid
S: CMD;ID=creation01:REPLY
S: TARGET:cal.example.com
S: BEGIN:VREPLY                
   <- Reply for 2nd calendar create
S: CALID:relcalz2
S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
S: END:VREPLY
S: BEGIN:VREPLY                
   <- Reply for 1st calendar create
S: CALID:relcalz1
S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
S: END:REPLY
S: END:VCALENDAR

and there is NO difference. I see no
justification for the text inbetween the request and reply that I cut out
that claims:

When there are multiple "TARGET" properties
in the original command object then the replies MUST BE in the exact same
order as they were provided to the CS. The same is true for the objects
created, their responses MUST BE in the exact same order as they were supplied
to the CS. 

since the CUA can simply use the CALIDs
to match responses with the matching request.  The same goes for the
creation of entries w/in the VAGENDAs.  There is ALWAYS info in the
VREPLY to match the reply up with the command and the right target.  Thats
_exactly_  how the create-vreply is crafted in the draft:

create-vreply  = "BEGIN"
":" "VREPLY" CRLF
                 created-id
                 request-status
                 other-props
                 "END"
":" "VREPLY" CRLF

               ; Where the id is appropriate
for the 
               ; type of object created:
               ;
               ; VAGENDA = calid
               ; VCAR = carid
               ; VEVENT, VFREEBUSY,
VJOURNAL, VTODO = uid
               ; VQUERY = queryid
               ; x-component = x-id
               ;

so that the proper id can be matched
up w/the proper objects.  Given the TARGET info from the VCALENDAR
and the info in the VREPLY matching is pretty straight forward unless Im
missing something.  If Im not then why is ordering important?  

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...