[MOBY-dev] RFC #1941 Asynchronous Service Call Proposal

[Martin Senger]

> Well in that case, the queryID and asyncID are redundant aren't they?  
> They are both just unique pointers to identify a certain mobyData  
> block.
>
   They are not the same, at all: First, queryID is defined by a client,
not a service provider - and two clients cannot guarantee that they assign
different IDs. Second, asyncID must be unique even for more requests (of
the same service, at least), but queryID does not need to be. For example,
as a client I can send two requests, both with the same queryID, but I
expect that the service provider distinguis them when I am polling for
their status.

> It would be good though to have an additional ID / ticket to  
> represent a session (that might be based on user's credentials etc.).
>
    Agree. That's what I suggested. 
 
> I think we definitely need one mobyStatus per mobyData block. So I  
> disagree with Martin there. If Martin wants to keep things simple he  
> can always summarise all the mobyStatus elements for one session and  
> tell a user whether the whole batch has finished or not.
> 
   I already said that I do not mind to have states of individual mobyData
blocks (named jobs, as we all in the meantime agreed). Fine with me. But I
keep telling that I *mind* to use mobyStatus tag (but that beongs
somewhere else).

   Good to have you on the discussion,
   Cheers,
   Martin

-- 
Martin Senger
   email: martin.senger at gmail.com
   skype: martinsenger
consulting for:
   International Rice Research Institute
   Biometrics and Bioinformatics Unit
   DAPO BOX 7777, Metro Manila
   Philippines, phone: +63-2-580-5600 (ext.2324)