...
| Issue | Notes | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is it intended that CM Notification subscription request cover (all) descendants of the given xpath too?! | e.g.. if a child is removed and there is a subscription for the parent node, will a notification be send (grandchild, child leaf updates etc.) I hope NOT! Consider:
| kieran mccarthy descendant not covered by 'basic' paths Wildcard will cover this kind of function in future |
| 2 | Could xpath point to an element that does not exist (yet) | if not how, how can I client be informed about a create event? | kieran mccarthy yes, xpath can point to things that don't exist yet (not even in the curernt model when an upgraded is pending) |
| 3 | Should NCMP support re-homing, moving of a CM Handle from one DMI to another? | assume only trough delete & create | kieran mccarthy out of scope |
| 4 | CM Handle Delete: Should DMI or Clients be sent a subscription update | do NOT delete dmi-subscription entry until owning subscription is deleted Note. LCM is already broadcast (today) |
|
| 5 | Validation of xpath | options order of implement and also performance cost!
| kieran mccarthy not required right now |
| 6 | can DMI plugin 'reject' a subscription create (for a given cm-handle-xpath combination) | As NCMP might not validate as per issue#5 the DMI=plugin or component further down might have to reject an invalid xpath... | yes currently DMI can use response to say which cm handles are not accepted i.e. rejected' (but not 'pending') kieran mccarthyconfirms DMI can reject whole subscription |
| 7 | implementation question: should 'rejected' DMI-subscriptions be stored | not needed as whole subscription should be rejected | kieran mccarthyconfirms |
| 8 | Dimensioning of DB depends on #cm handles, #subscriptions and #xpaths per subscription, this could be too big for fast processing of updates! | Need to agree maximum and possibly realistic average/total number of entries based on the characteristics above The team is blocked until this becomes clear as it wil affect the way the data needs to be modelled exactly | ongoing but not completed! |
| 9 | Maximum (error) message size | theoretically all cm handles and all xpaths combinations could be rejected or pending leading to a very large error message! | Toine Siebelink no longer relevant given and max decided |
| 10 | can each CM-Handle have different set of xpath(s) per subscription | the current 'basic' solution only supports a common set of datastore/xpaths (filter) | kieran mccarthy Yes, clients will create only one subscrption and they might have different needs for differnt nodes (cm handles) |
| 11 | can the same cm handle/xpath have different subscriptions with different datastores, does that affect the cm data notifications send (which datastore applies) | ||
| 12 | Will migration from 'basic' be supported | Preferred to ask customers to create new subscriptions | kieran mccarthy no need to support (migration) of 'basic' solution. Development of 'basic' solution can be stopped! |
| 13 | list v list instances filtering | /p/c1 | kieran mccarthy yes, from NCMP point of view a list and a list entry are different xpaths |
| 14 | confirm subscription id (currently name + client id) | kieran mccarthy to clarify ASAP | |
| 15 | what subscription details should be send when there is a change (in the union) |
| (after initial meeting) kieran mccarthy & Toine Siebelink agreed that because of the possible size of the union (200x200x10=400,000) it is only feasible to send the delta ie option 1. |
| 16 | one DMI rejects whole (see decsion 6) subscription (affected cmhandles) but other DMI accepts the same sub |
Solution Proposals
Current state handling for 'basic' (not merged) subscription create/delete (under development)
...