Re: Multi-block message bodies

[JamesTraynor]

Yes, unique is good. I had only thought of adding the .1,.2 etc to
make unique block names and to provide order. I can't see any reason
to .232,.444,.565 type additions as, as you say, is more like adding
data where there shouldn't be. So basically what we are saying is:

-:- Message block names are unique
-:- Any repeating identical block names are suffixed by a .X
-:- The X starts at 1 and is sequential with no gaps
-:- The order of these sequential blocks within a message can be
random
-:- Does it need any more complication than this.( k.i.s.s. )

my xap news program now uses the above and it does provide a nice
simple way of sorting and packaging ordered list type data.

James


> AIUI James wishes each block within a message body to be uniquelly
> named, hence Block.Name.1 and Block.Name.2
>
> As it happens I was reading the spec last night for something or
other
> and I came across an example which references my.Block.1 etc in the
> "Wildcarding of address via Body (Multi-Block messages
only)"
section.
>
> Seems like you guys have already been doing this type of thing
> already.
>
> My own thought was to keep data out of the block name, but I can see
> the usefulness of uniqueness in the names.
>
> For myself, I wasn't too wild on indexed data within each block:
>
> Block.Name
> {
> Data1=This }
> Line1=Wibble }
>
> Data2=That }
> Line2=Wobble }
> }
>
> I think separating this into multiple blocks makes processing
easier,
> because the possible data in the block is much reduced, as well as
> making the block schema much neater, but at the expense of a very
> slight increase in data in a message body (ie the cost of repeating
> the block name plus a unique index value, and a little bit).
>
> Block.Name
> {
> Data=This
> Line=Wibble
> }
> Block.Name
> {
> Data=That
> Line=Wobble
> }
>
> I hadn't realised I could do block target addressing, but it's easy
> for a receiver app to add their own support for this using my
> xAPFramework classes, so I don't feel I need to add any explicit
> support for this in the SDK.
>
> Anyway, was there any thinking on block name indexing in previous
> discussions? I.e. Block.Name.1
>
> It's only needed where multiple blocks of the same name exists. I'm
> wondering about adding some support for this in my framework and was
> curious to know if there was any specifics about this format e.g.
such
> things as "must be sequential only within a single message
body".
>
> Block.Name.1
> { }
> Block.Name.2
> { }
>
> is okay, but
>
> Block.Name.3
> {
> }
>
> on its own wouldn't make sense.
>
> Or whether the data could be randomly indexed:
>
> Block.Name.1234
> { }
> Block.Name.2468
> { }
>
> This seems to be getting towards including *data* with the block
name,
> which strikes me as being wrong. A sequential (although perhaps
> randomly ordered within a body, but preferably sequentially ordered)
> list seems useful and something I can add support for in my xAP
> framework code.
>
> Just curious.
>
> S
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stuart Booth [mailto:lists@x...]
> > > Sent: 01 June 2003 18:22
> > > To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=5Qh2if6ZzIV3GWd_iNywzWgI1NNdG5ViaznP4JI-dXO0wsxgmY6xtVGEgfP3ya28gDFyHSEYU7jZPOas7y9FLu1AFrMWCw">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> > > Subject: Re: [xAP_developer] Topic 1: Base Level Status
Schema
>
> [munch]
> > > This reminds me of what I've been wondering about James'
News
feed. If
> > > you included data in the block name you can include the
status
of each
> > > port in a separate message block in the message body, and
use
the same
> > > format for each block.
> > >
> > > Is there any scope of including instance data in the block
name format
> > > e.g. Block.Name:Instance ?
> > >
> > > I've preferred to have data variables inside the blocks
though. It's
> > > data, not a type, after all.
>
> --
> Stuart Booth
> xAPFramework.net - a reusable xAP framework for .net
>
> <a href="http://www.xapframework.net/";>http://www.xapframework.net/</a>
stuart@x...