Re: Re: Message Etiquette

[Gregg Liming <gregg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Darren,

Quoting darrenp_lock (4/16/07 3:56 PM):

> Are there any apps out there that apply standard generic processing
> of named message blocks. e.g. If I put the folderid or messageid into
> the xap message block name are there applications that can extract
> this based on simple rules and subsequently call a follow on xap
> message to request more details about the message or folder?

Well, I can only speak emphatically about misterhouse; and, it
definitely can.  I would guess other apps can as certain schemas would
seem to encourage this.  I would hope that you will get additional
pros/cons from others, however, before making assumptions.

> As a side note: are there any plans to introduce schema versions to
> allow schemas to evolve over time?

I'll defer to others "in the know".  It would seem more useful if
this
were the case.  In practice, I see more "embellishment" (i.e.,
additions
or refinements to interpretation) than strict schema control.  There are
certain occasions/situations where this leads to considerable problems.

> :-/As I understand it, I am limited to 254 subaddress IDs, therefore
> multiple asterisk servers and contexts will limit the number of
> mailboxes somewhat e.g. 2 servers with 2 contexts will limit me to 63
> (ish) mailboxes per context per server if I use an address
> reservation technique. Unless I just allocate subaddress IDs on a
> first come first served basis until I have used all 254 up i.e. max
> of 254 mailboxes across any number of servers and contexts?

Those assumptions seem quite valid.  I would suggest considering several
points: (1) the xAP schema is either close or has adopted the extended
addressing capability that would make this constrain moot (although,
there seems to be an unending series of issues getting things moving
here), (2) I have personally used your "first-come-first-served"
concept--realizing that my personal approach results in some only
semi-persistent UID allocation (yet nothing broke despite concerns that
might suggest otherwise if exceptionally conservative) and (3) be very,
very practical about what you think are your real environments (e.g.,
reasonable # of servers, contexts, etc) are as planning for the worst
case can lead to an exceptional and often inappropriate level of effort
(which is fine--so long as "worst case" really deserves that
level of
attention).  If I were to have adopted the full spirit and constraint of
the original UID subaddressing limit, I would have bailed on xAP long ago.

Regards,

Gregg