[standards-jig] PubSub question

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Mon Jul 14 18:47:38 UTC 2003


Jean-Louis Seguineau/EXC/ENG wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Re-reading JEP0060 if was just wondering if there was a particular reason
> for having  a somewhat convoluted <subscribe-options> tag that is only used
> to specify that configuration is required for a subscription (see example
> 40)
> Wouldn't it be simpler to have just a single tag instead as described bellow
[Examples snipped]

This was done because the two elements have different semantic meaning. They
also have different schemas. Note that the <subscribe-options> tag indicates
that your options MAY (or MUST depending on the presence of the <required/>
child element) be configured. This is basically a notification from the system
to the user.

The <options> element is used to actually request and set my current options.
This is very differenet from a notification. This combined with the fact that
the two elements have different schemas is why I used two different element
names. Note that <subscribe-options> is only valid as a child of entity, while
<options> is only valid as a child of the pubsub element itself.

pgm.




More information about the Standards mailing list