[Standards-JIG] JEP-0060 PubSub: Modifying Node/Collection Associations and other issues.
stpeter at jabber.org
Tue May 30 20:55:15 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Bob Wyman wrote:
> I find the discussion of collections in JEP-0060 to be very confusing
> and at times contradictory.
Quite possibly. I will read through it again and try to clean it up.
Confusion is bad.
> Bernhard has recently been asking about ?moving? a node from one
> collection to another. These questions arise, I think, since JEP-006
> does not directly address the ?move node? use case. The subject of
> associating nodes with collections is only dealt with in any depth in
> Section 9.5 ?Creating Nodes Associated with a Collection.? As one can
> see from the section title, Section 9.5 is primarily focused on
> associating newly created nodes with collections at the time of the
> node?s creation. The subject of ?Disassociating? nodes from collections
> or of associating existing nodes with collections is only lightly
> touched upon at the end of Section 9.5. I believe we need to flesh out
> the discussion of nodes and collections in order to build a more useful
You're right. That will be part of my cleanup.
> I propose that we expand (yes, expand?) JEP-0060 to include
> some new sections and modify the existing Section 9.5:
> 9.X Discovering the Nodes in a collection
> 9.Y Associating Nodes with Collections
> 9.5 Modify to deal better with ?default? attributes.
> Discovering the Nodes in a Collection:
> It appears that the pubsub#leaf_nodes field of a collection
> contains: ?'The leaf nodes associated with a collection?. However, other
> than an indirect reference at the end of Section 9.5 and a brief
> appearance in Section 16.4.3, this very important attribute is not
> discussed in the document and no examples demonstrate its use. I believe
> it would be appropriate to provide an example of ?Discovering the Nodes
> in a Collection? which would demonstrate querying for and reading the
> pubsub#leaf_nodes field. Also, it would appear that even though the
> field is called ?leaf_nodes? that it can contain either leaf-nodes or
> collection-nodes. (Collections contain **either** leaf-nodes or
> collection-nodes?) Thus, the field should probably have been called:
> ?child_nodes,? ?contained_nodes,? or simply ?nodes.?
True, that is confusing. How about "associated_nodes"? Somehow the
language of parent and child bothers me a bit in relation to pubsub, but
I'm not sure why.
> Associating Nodes with Collections:
> There are three interesting use-cases which are not already
> covered well by the existing Section 9.5:
> 1. Associating an existing node with a collection.
> 2. Disassociating an existing node with a collection.
> 3. Moving a node from one collection to another (i.e. 1 and 2
> Other than the discussion in Section 9.5 of associating
> newly created nodes with Collections and some inferences in other
> places, JEP-0060 is largely silent on the subject of associating nodes
> with collections. This should be fleshed out.
> It appears that one can associate a node with a collection
> by modifying the ?leaf_nodes? field of the collection. Alternatively,
> one can modify the ?pubsub#collection? field of a node. However, these
> mechanisms are only mentioned in terms of disassociating a node from a
> collection (see end of Section 9.5). We should have some discussion of
> the ?positive? use of these mechanisms to associate a node with a
> collection and we should probably have at least one example (yes, more
> Given these two mechanisms for modifying the association of
> a node with a collection, it would appear that the answer to bernards?s
> questions concerning ?moving? a node, would be that to do so, you must
> use one of these mechanisms. (modify pubsub#leaf_nodes of the
> appropriate collections or pubsub#collection of the node being moved.)
> However, there are some serious problems created here due to
> the support for implementation-specific ?semantic meaning? in node ids.
> The problem is that modifications to collections would require the
> regeneration (changing) of NodeIDs if those NodeIDs have semantic
If the semantic meaning is intended to reflect hierarchy, yes. (BTW, I
will modify the examples to remove all suggestion of hierarchy in the
> For instance, if an implementation held that ?/? in a NodeID
> indicates hierarchy, then if I moved the node with the NodeID ?foo/bar?
> into the ?mumble? collection, it would be necessary to generate a new
> NodeID ( perhaps: ?mumble/bar?) and delete the old NodeID. This is very
> problematic since it means that the act of ?moving? the node would kill
> any existing subscriptions to that NodeID?
Yes, that is very problematic indeed.
> (Unless the subscriptions
> were all ?re-written? and some means was found of communicating the
> rewrites to all appropriate clients? Also, all items in the collection
> would have to be re-written to indicate that they had been published to
> the new NodeID not the old one. This would be cumbersome and error-prone.).
> It would appear that implementations that supported ?semantics in
> NodeIDs? would, by definition, be incapable of permitting a single node
> to appear in more than one collection since a node can only have a
> single NodeID? (Unless some complex syntax for NodeIDs was defined to
> indicate membership in more than one collection (?(foo|mumble)/bar?
> might work for the example above.)
Again, I don't think it's right to conflate semantic meaning with
hierarchical structure. But in the case where the semantic meaning
attempts to encapsulate hierarchy (bad!), then you would be right.
> Issues with 9.5 (concerning default configurations)
> As written, it would appear that Section 9.5 creates a
> conflict with the normal means of creating a node.
> 1. Because an implementation can ?generate? NodeIDs if it
> attributes semantic meaning to NodeIDs, and since it is not possible to
> discover if an implementation has such a policy (there is no IQ value
> that describes the policy),
It would be good to specify how this can be discovered.
> it would appear that one should never
> provide a NodeID in a request to create a node within a collection. One
> must always use ?Instant Nodes? (see: Example 107) in this case and thus
> a system that supports NodeID semantics MUST always support Instant
> Nodes. Also, in order to support clients that are expecting
> implementations that support Semantics in NodeIDs, all implementations
> are essentially forced to support Instant Nodes.
That doesn't seem good.
> 2. It appears impossible to create a node in a collection if that
> node is to have a ?default? configuration. This is because the mechanism
> for creating a node in a collection requires that a non-empty
> <configure/> element be used yet Section 8.1.2 says that to create a
> node with a ?default configuration,? one must use an empty <configure/>
> element to indicate that you wish a default configuration. It would seem
> that we would have to either expand Section 8.1.2 to say that you must
> either use an empty <configure/> element or, in the case that you are
> creating a node in a collection, you must use a <configure/> element
> that only contains a value for ?pubsub#collection?.
That seems acceptable.
> Alternatively, the
> discussion in 9.5 could be modified to state that nodes created in
> collections must be fully configured on creation. This would suggest
> that the example 192 should be expanded to show full configuration upon
I like this less well but I don't have a strong preference between the
two right now. Including only the "pubsub#collection" field seems like a
bit of a hack, I have to admit (overloading).
> General issues:
> It should be clear to anyone reading the discussion of
> collections that the support for ?semantics? in NodeIDs (described in
> 12.12) makes things much more complex than they might otherwise be. This
> is particularly the case since a client has no means to discover what
> semantics might be associated with the NodeID patterns?.
> But, NodeID
> semantics makes it hard for us to:
> 1. Support Nodes that are members of more than one collection
> 2. Move nodes from one collection to another
> 3. Disassociate a node from a collection
> 4. Name nodes consistently across implementations.
> 5. Achieve consistency of the protocol across implementations and
> thus achieve interoperability.
> As a publisher, I?m particularly interested in being able to have
> NodeIDs be consistent across implementations. I would, for instance,
> like to be able to call for a ?standard? that says that we would use the
> conventions defined for ?TagURIs? in defining nodes. (See:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4151.txt) For instance, I would like to say
> that any server that provides access to a stream of updates to my blog
> should name the appropriate node as ?tag:wyman.us,2005:blog?. Of course,
> individual servers might put ?my node? in different places in a
> hierarchy as defined by their collection structure ? but, anyone looking
> for ?tag:wyman.us,2005:blog? would always find my blog feed no matter
> what the hierarchy was. One site might have my blog under ?CGM.blogs?
> while another might have it in the collection ?Blogs.PubSub_employees.?
> I shouldn?t care where it appears as long as the NodeID is the same in
> all places?.
> Please consider expanding the documentation of collections to cover all
> the appropriate use cases and PLEASE remove the ?semantics? for NodeIDs
> that is mentioned in sections 9.5 and 12.12. Section 12.12 should say
> ?NodeID?s? are opaque. Any hierarchy is defined only by the relationship
> by inclusion in hierarchies (graphs) of collections.
But doesn't "tag:wyman.us,2005:blog" itself have semantic meaning?
What if we say that a NodeID MAY have semantic meaning but MUST NOT
Jabber Software Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards