On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Alasdair Allan <aa-at-astro.ex.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> > For this to work, we'd need a concept in SAMP that an app subscribing to
> > table.load.votable would be willing to read a table.load message as well,
I think I mistyped: What I meant was "an app subscribing to
table.load willing
to accept a table.load.votable"
> Totally disagree... ;)
A sure sign of the apocalypse if it were any other way 8-)
> If an application wants to subscribe to a table.load.votable and then
> arrange a bunch of flows on receipt of this message that's fine with me, I
> think defining an action that an application must take to go with a specific
> message is the wrong way to go. What happens at the application end on
> receipt of a specific message is, as far as I'm concerned, up to the
> application.
I agree. However, an early draft describing mtypes as creating a "rough idea"
was rejected for the idea that mtypes have a well-defined meaning
(e.g. image.display
means a 2-D greyscale rendering in the app, not that it loads a
web-page to display
the image).
> Specifying that something that's decided to accept a table.load.votable has
> to accept a table.load is a an anathema to this concept. If the sender
> wanted the app to do something (arrange a bunch of flowers) it should have
> sent it a message it was willing to accept.
Does the correction above satisfy your concerns?
Cheers,
-Mike
Received on 2008-05-09Z17:50:11