Difference between revisions of "Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ack"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Satomi Ahn (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:For this point: | |||
:[14:07] Satomi Ahn: considering your first remark: I believe it is implicit that x-tensions can override some of the requirements of the core specification. The important thing being that we know what to expect. | |||
:[14:07] Satomi Ahn: (maybe it can be explained better in the core requirements?) | |||
:[14:08] Chloe1982 Constantine: yeah.. perhaps... and I have no problem with it overriding the core spec.. I just think it needs to be explicit that that is what it is doing | |||
:--> ok the core spec should be more precise on this point. | |||
:--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Of course, it only concerns the device issuing !x-ack. I add a remark in the spec. --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I believe it should stay as it was. Do you see a reason why it would be better to reset it? --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:It is already explicitly stated: « quiet: "ok" and "ko" acknowledgements are not sent. » --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:13, 20 October 2010
As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --Chloe1982 Constantine 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- For this point:
- [14:07] Satomi Ahn: considering your first remark: I believe it is implicit that x-tensions can override some of the requirements of the core specification. The important thing being that we know what to expect.
- [14:07] Satomi Ahn: (maybe it can be explained better in the core requirements?)
- [14:08] Chloe1982 Constantine: yeah.. perhaps... and I have no problem with it overriding the core spec.. I just think it needs to be explicit that that is what it is doing
- --> ok the core spec should be more precise on this point.
- --Satomi Ahn 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the !x-ack I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --Chloe1982 Constantine 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, it only concerns the device issuing !x-ack. I add a remark in the spec. --Satomi Ahn 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --Chloe1982 Constantine 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it should stay as it was. Do you see a reason why it would be better to reset it? --Satomi Ahn 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --Chloe1982 Constantine 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is already explicitly stated: « quiet: "ok" and "ko" acknowledgements are not sent. » --Satomi Ahn 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)