[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: feedback: OCP version head_sid2 thread: Try 2
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:
> > Question: MUST all the messages forwarded from an application
> > connection be on the same OCP connection? I can't determine
> > this from the requirements doc.
> > You are right, it is not clear, even the definition of a
> > connection is not clear, since it sounds like a session to me.
What is not clear about the OCP connection definition? We should fix
whatever is broken.
We can change "OCP connection" to "OCP session"; the only reason the
draft says "connection" is because that is what OCP requirements draft
uses. Should we ignore this minor discrepancy if "session" is more
> > For the sake of simplicity ( I am trying to be careful here
> > with the choice of words) I think we should state the same
> > connection. I am sure though that others will disgaree, which
> > means more state keeping (keeping track of message id/fragments etc..)
Actually, for the sake of simplicity, we should not explicitly try to
adapt application connections. Adapting application connections would
be the only reason to talk about them in the OCP context. Then we
should talk about adapting other application-specific things like
sessions, caching, etc.
The current intent is for OCP to facilitate adaptation of application
message data and metadata. The metadata hides all application-specific
things like source IP, session ID, or "connection". That's the beauty
of the design, we just need to document/explain it better.