[BXXPwg] Some recommendations regarding BXXP
Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:58:06 -0500
At 4:12 PM +0300 8/10/00, email@example.com wrote:
>2.) I don't understand, why the pipelining behaviour is, the requests and
>responses could come out of order ( the fragments as well). The serial
>number, (the channel number) and seqno unambiguously identifies , which REQ
>or RSP the fragment belongs to. This gives the possibility of the real
>asynchronous transactions. In some use cases this may have importance.
I agree. I think it should be up to a particular profile whether or
not responses should be issued in order, rather than the higher-level
Say you're designing an instant messaging protocol on top of BXXP. A
client could issue a "subscribe to group firstname.lastname@example.org" command, and
then wait for responses to it. One response might be "subscription
request successful," and subsequent responses might be "message
posted to email@example.com". There's no reason why clients and servers
shouldn't be able to handle these responses concurrently with other
responses, regardless of the order in which they're received.
This type of functionality is similar to IMAP and ACAP's "untagged"
responses, and could be very useful to higher-level protocol
designers. I know it's something people designing RPC-oriented
protocols are very interested in.
Christopher M. Hanson