Subject: Re: BEEP and CAP - one-to-many

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:16:31 -0500

>What do you mean by a thin client can't handle a monolithic 
>reply?

Have you read Doug's earlier message? He wrote:

>>Currently the objects in the reply must be in the TARGET order of the
>>original request. This restriction was placed in CAP as a result
>>of a debate in the past where some vendors  did not want
>>to be forced to re-assemble or wait for  all of the objects.
>>They wanted to get everything all at once. So we agreed that
>>the responses must be in the same order as the request.
>>
>>This I think was related to the creation of the max-component-size
>>capability (then property) that would limit the object size
>>in that reply. Its not going to do any good to send a 1MB object
>>in 10K chunks, if it can only support 500K of data. These thin
>>clients wanted "all or nothing" in the replies.

/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|E pui muove! -- Galileo                                 |
\========================================================/