[Fiware-ngsi] NGSI10 binding sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.3.1: identical structs

[Rolando Sergio (Guest)]

Hi Tobias, hi Fermin,
I'd suggest using the unique name "updateContextElementRequest" improving backward compatibility, since also other words would not be better ("modify..." means a sort of "update", and it does not seem to suit "append" operations, or at least... not better than "update" itself).
Best regards,
Sergio

________________________________
From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Tobias Jacobs
Sent: martedì 10 dicembre 2013 13.49
To: Fermín Galán Márquez; fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-ngsi] NGSI10 binding sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.3.1: identical structs

Hi Fermin,

Yes, that makes sense to me.
Best
Tobias

From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Fermín Galán Márquez
Sent: Montag, 9. Dezember 2013 12:23
To: fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-ngsi] NGSI10 binding sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.3.1: identical structs

Hi,

We have found that the data structs described in NGSI10 binding document sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.3.1 ( updateContextElementRequest and appendContextElementRequest) are exactly equal. Thus, we suggest to have only one (probably with a different and "neutral" name, such modifyContextElementResponse).

What do you think?

Best regards,

------
Fermín
________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ngsi/attachments/20131210/9e9155d3/attachment.html>