Subject: Re: [Simple] Issue with comparisons for triggerring

From: "Sean Leahy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:08:50 +0000

I think the filter is not a one shot in the sense that although it cannot 
shoot again as it is (because the required source state can never be 
reached since the watcher only sees the target state), the filter has to 
be maintained because it may be 'disabled' by the watcher and then 
'enabled' again after a return to the required source state (whilst 
disabled).

Is this your position - Hisham ?

Sean

Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
17/03/2006 10:28

        To:     ext Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: [Simple] Issue with comparisons for triggerring

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 21:14 +0100, ext Hisham Khartabil wrote:
> Michal is correct in his observation. The NOTIFY at step 7 should not 
> be sent. As far as the subscriber is concerned, the is C (receiving the 
> NOTIFY at step 3). There is no new information given to the subscriber 
> at step 7 that s/he requested.
> 
> Hisham

ok, I was afraid that this wasn't unambiguous enough. So now I must
change my mind (after re-reading the format i-d) that the text needs
some clarification, i.e. it should say that the trigger rule is one-shot
only (perhaps I was mislead by correspondence with electronics, e.g.
monostable multivibrator ;-)). But I don't want to argue whether
multi-shot or one-shot behavior is better...

br,
Jari 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Hisham Khartabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:21:29 +0100

In this example, it was one shot, but other use cases will show it can 
be multi shot. It all depends on the filter. A general <changed> 
triggering filter, for example is hardly one shot.

And yes, you can disable then enable filters, but that doesnt make it 
multi shot.

Hisham

On Mar 17, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Sean Leahy wrote:

>
> I think the filter is not a one shot in the sense that although it 
> cannot shoot again as it is (because the required source state can 
> never be reached since the watcher only sees the target state), the 
> filter has to be maintained because it may be 'disabled' by the 
> watcher and then 'enabled' again after a return to the required source 
> state (whilst disabled).
>