From: David N. <dno...@ya...> - 2006-08-26 04:55:18
|
From: "Tim Sailer" <tp...@ma...> > On Fri, August 25, 2006 22:36, Gregg Liming said: > >> A URN? So, the implication is that "do it" calls need to not just be >> thought of as "void" (or the equivalent) but always allowing the option >> of a response. What happens if the response is split across both an >> immediate (partial) response and one that is deferred? > > The way I've done things like this, is to pass a parameter back with a > unique response number, and the URN called again with that response > number. It'll be a null response until it's finished, and the rest of the > response passed back. I read your comment, but didn't really understand it until I wrote my idea about instance ids. Your idea is certainly simpler than mine and requires no extra support from the misterhouse interals. It allows for many different implementations, which is good and bad. Just to make sure I understand, an example might be: Client says "get the latest weather image" Server notices request is from xml and responds something like "weather image requested, will be at http://somerandomurl" Client periodically looks for http://somerandomurl Server finally downloads image and puts it at http://somerandomurl Client downloads and displays image maybe in popup. Server later deletes image file. Maybe at the least we could have a standard field in the response to a "run voice command" command to indicate a extra response is or will be available. David |