On 12/14/11 1:57 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
At this point we have a spec in the document you pointed to, but precious little in the way of independent compliance testing, so there's a real danger of the actual implementation diverging from the specification simply by accident.
Already I see it's changed from what we implemented. For example, your header now contains the msg_type, and the top-level contains the msg_id, duplicating both pieces of information. To me, it makes sense to keep things the way they were (msg_id in header, msg_type at the top-level), and don't duplicate the information. This minimizes the information that has to go back and forth (no need to send back the msg_type in the parent_header, since the client could just store it, though I suppose the argument could be made that msg_type really does belong in the header).
What if the msg_id or msg_type between the header and the top-level is inconsistent? Which takes precedence? I presume that the header information takes precedence, but since the top-level fields are for convenience, my guess is that in practice, the top-level fields take precedence, since if you have to compare the top-level fields with the header fields, you might as well just use the header fields.
A very simple wrapper function on the receiving end can add the convenience fields if they really need to be at the top-level, and that would guarantee consistency.
Feel free to CC this message over to the ipython list if you want to take up the discussion there.
Thanks, Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
