Jazzed - Try it out 90 days no cost

Start searching profiles.





========================================================================================================================== Blaine Cook;375 Wrote: I disagree. My point is that if the spec allows using HTTP URIs as PubSub nodes (it does), then you can write them the same. If they produce the same content, then they are the same, just over different transports. By making the nodes and urls equivalent, the accessibility for developers writing code against APIs increases dramatically. Maybe. I don't really understand, in fact but you seem to have a precise idea of what you mean. So do you say that you can subscribe to an XMPP node by clicking on a http url? HTTP and XMPP are separate tcp protocols and unless you propose to access XMPP through an HTTP layer, I don't really understand how you make an XMPP url with an http url. Could you explain me this please, because maybe there is a very interesting point here that I don't manage to get. :-) Not true. I've written dynamic PubSub handlers in Ruby (i.e., PubSub handlers that could support query strings), and it's easy enough to do so in any language. If you're accepting tags in some other form, e.g. , then you're writing a dynamic PubSub handler anyways. I did not say it was not possible (of course it is) and that it did not exist (though I didn't know, this is nice), but that it was not a specification (of course I may be wrong. I have not read all the XMPP specs, far from a little part even). And for me having a specification helps to spread a technology. Anyway dynamic pubsub is "less" important to be standardized though, because it is server-side only. So you can implement it without wondering whether some client would implement it too, etc. as it will work anyway transparently on a client point of view. See the debate of WS-* to REST. Currently the protocol has support for this, but uses URLs (!) to define keyword semantics. The example given in the spec is: I don't really know this debate. I will make some searches. If you have interesting links, don't hesitate too. Moreover, XEP-0060 is 43,103 words long, which translates to about 172 pages of printed text. The chances of a keywording system being added to a PubSub architecture are pretty slim, I have to say. It's better to just accept the fact that usage will be diverse and let people develop their own methodologies for handling these things. For me, the size of the XEP should not be a brake for enhancing it. First because you may make a second XEP related to it for enhanced use case. Also because this is not like a compact text and it is very easy to read with the summary (a technical text well structured is not to be read like a story book, you can read some parts very fast, jump over others, etc.). And I think some parts of this XEP can be enhanced anyway, and maybe completely transform, etc. And finally for this, yes a specification is definitely useful because it cannot be just implementation dependent. For the dynamic node url, yes you can leave people develop their own methodologies, as I said, because it is server side. But for a system of powerful indexing/search/subscription by tag (or other field values), there is also a client-side implementation (because if your server leaves the possibility for extended search but that your client does not know how to make it, there is no use, unless you want people to directly type XML). So there needs to be a common specification, unless you want dozens of different implementation all not-compatible for node/item indexing... Jehan -- Jehan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jehan's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.org/member.php?userid=16911 View this thread: http://www.jabberforum.org/showthread.php?t=95 Hi Guys, I had an interesting experience with my SATA DVD-RW Drives following a Kernel Upgrade from: 2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.i686 to 2.6.28.6 (Vanilla) I had been previously using a Fedora 10 release, but required the 2.6.28 kernel in order to update the driver for my onboard Intel Graphics chip (apparently some modules required for this process had been moved into the kernel from 27->28). This was required to fix an issue which was preventing correct functionality of a C++ application I'm working on. This C++ application also has a heavy bias on DVD-ROM burning, and this is where my two problems lie. Rebuilding went smoothly, and the 2.6.28.6 kernel ran as expected in all but 2 areas: 1) When reading from the disc in a DVD-RW Drive, The return values of the IOCTL Call CDROM_DRIVE_STATUS were not the same as the previous kernel values. 2) Maximum burning speed of the drive seems to be very slow; averaging 2.2X instead of the previous 10+X. I rooted around in the source code to fix issue 1), and found the following code was completely omitted from the function int sr_drive_status(struct cdrom_device_info *cdi, int slot) in the file sr_ioctl.c: /* SK/ASC/ASCQ of 2/4/1 means "unit is becoming ready" */ if (scsi_sense_valid(&sshdr) && sshdr.sense_key == NOT_READY && sshdr.asc == 0x04 && sshdr.ascq == 0x01) return CDS_DRIVE_NOT_READY; My Question is: Is this an intentional change, or an accidental omission? It's pretty weird to have a whole chunk like that missing from a function without a comment. I've had to manually replace this bit of code to regain the functionality I had in the 2.6.27 kernel. This is the only change I had to make, which is even stranger. How come it's different in 2.6.28.6? Regarding issue 2) - I haven't found a solution to this yet. I've used various tools to check the speed of the drive, and it's set at maximum 16.4X. Using Growisofs to burn the DVDs also displays that the application is attempting to burn at 16.4X, but in reality it only averages 2.2X. This is a major issue for my application, as burn times are absolutely critical. If I boot my Linux machine using the previous kernel (2.6.27...) I get the maximum burn speeds back. Something has definitely changed in upgrading kernels. I even used the 2.6.27 config file when building the 2.6.28 kernel, so I know all the settings are the same. Have there been any fundamental changes in the SCSI driver from 2.6.27-19 to 2.6.28.6? how can I get my top burn speeds back? Thanks in advance for any help or pointers you can give me. I've trawled the net, but the only posts I have found are for IDE drives, and the top solution is to fiddle with uDMA settings - obviously not an option here. Best regards, -- Dominic Driver Engineer Paragon Electronic Design Limited Level 2 21-23 Andrews Avenue ANZ House PO Box 30-449, Lower Hutt New Zealand Direct: +64 4 5703892 Fax: +64 4 5703 871 mailto: domi ... @paragon.co.nz http://www.paragon.co.nz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majo ... @vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html