Re: Wildcarding query

[James <james@xxxxxxx>]

> Now I know James for example believes an untargeted packet
>and a target=>:> packet should be treated the same.  My simple
view is a
>target=>.> says 'please try and process/action this message if
you can'
>and for me targetless messages does not carry this meaning, they are
>informational.  As we have two scenarios that effectively look the same
>it seems sensible to utilise them to different advantage. But my view
>could be wrong here. Being able to ignore untargeted messages is very
>useful for me, I believe E does this too ?
>
My reasoning here is that a standard xAP message is for everyone.
Targeting is simply a method of narrowing down the audience. I think of
it as pure binary function, it's either a message for me or not. As
KevinT mentioned targeting can be just as useful for Info type messages
as for commands. A command is down to the schema, targetting or lack
there of should have no real context to the function of a message, it
should just specify if the postman will deliver it or not.
I do think that a > should cover every thing up to the : , so a message
sent to > would only go to device with a uid ending in 00. To get a
message to go every where either have no target or target to >:> .
I think the danger here, with targets, is that schema will become
overley complicated where exactly the same message will have a different
function based on target. I just want to keep addressing and function
seperate.

David, on BSC and wildcards. You can set the id=* within a BSC13 message
and then wildcard using the target so it's not quite a simple as saying
BSC=no wildcarding.  In fact in alot of functions where i use BSC I just
use the target to specify the message destination and just keep the id=*
as it is a much simpler process to deal with.

James