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

[Tobias Jacobs]

Dear all,
Are we sure that we want to unify updateContextElementRequest and appendContextElementRequest in this release?
It makes technically sense, but it would make the current implementations of several partners suddenly incompatible with the public binding shortly before the review.
The other improvements that were suggested are backwards-compatible, but this one is not.
Any opinions?
Best regards
Tobias

From: Fermín Galán Márquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es]
Sent: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2013 15:47
To: Tobias Jacobs; Rolando Sergio (Guest)
Cc: 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

Dear Tobias, Sergio,

Using updateContextElementRequest as unique name is also fine with us (TID).

Best regards,

------
Fermín

El 10/12/2013 14:17, Tobias Jacobs escribió:
Fine with me; and backwards compatibility is a good point!


-          Tobias

From: Rolando Sergio (Guest) [mailto:sergio.rolando at guest.telecomitalia.it]
Sent: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2013 14:14
To: Tobias Jacobs; Fermín Galán Márquez; fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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 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> [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<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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

________________________________

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/20131212/fe8fe59c/attachment.html>