[Standards-JIG] pubsub: affiliations and subscriptions

Bob Wyman bob at wyman.us
Sun Feb 19 01:04:29 UTC 2006


On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 09:22:30PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> So my conclusion is that it's best to be a bit more verbose and
> represent one "affiliate" for each combination of affiliation and
> subscription. This is more verbose but, I think, the safest approach.
	I agree. Given the way that current systems work and what we have in
the current protocol, we must use the more verbose approach and support
having multiple subscription-specific affiliations to a single node. The
current mechanism for getting a list of active subscriptions is to list
affiliations. It would be kind of violent to modify that now...

	I also agree with Ralphm's suggestion that mixing affliations and
subscriptions is messy. I have never liked this "affiliation" business. It
seems to combine too many concepts into a single messy framework. What I
would much prefer is a general access control mechanism for operations on
nodes. Doing things such as listing subscriptions shouldn't require that
clients get exposed to "affiliation" information which is basically just
access control info on nodes. When I'm working with subscriptions, I don't
care about nodes... I only care about nodes when I'm creating subscriptions.

	bob wyman






More information about the Standards mailing list