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

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Doug replied:
> As we are not doing transactions there can not be more than
> one match in your example provided. Once it is deleted by the 1st
QUERY
> it could not have existed for the 2nd QUERY to match. (no matter
> which one of them you process 1st).

As Andrea has pointed out, this is not
actually stated in the text and so he inferred that it was possible.  I
think we all here agree but its just not clear in the draft.

> For QUERYs that are not deletes I would say return
each VREPLY
> that matches the supplied QUERY value.

Whats the use of this?  If the
VEVENT matches any QUERY then it should be sent back; do multiple copies
give it any greater emphasis to the user?  Would resending the same
large ZIP ATTACHment result in anything more than just extra wasted bandwidth?

The only justification I could see for
sending mulitple XXX-replys was due to different SELECT clauses that may
or may not overlap.  That is, 1 VQUERY asks for ATTENDEEs and another
asks for ATTACHments and VALARMs.  However I have to question the
Real World usage of this kind of overlapping selection.  Yes, its
legal to do in CAP (hence why Doug wants it?) BUT realistically speaking
how many CUs are going to do a _single_ SEARCH command for "All
EVENTs on my calendar for Today" AND "The EVENT whose UID is
12345@xxxxxxxxxxxx" all the while asking for different sets of properties
from each query??  Each of these are really much much more typical
as separate actions on the CUs part. 

Id like to take a simplified approach
here since I see no real benefit to over engineering this.  

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...