Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 20:59 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> 
> From what Dmitry listed I guess there's really only one.

Ok. I guess I need to go back to that then.

> Early on in the thread Luca gave some other examples of scan
> extensions so may need to consider notification/dump methods that are
> extensible. It seems awkward to have a single "initiate" command and
> a couple of "notification/retrieval" commands. It may not be so bad
> as long as it is clear which retrieval command goes with a
> notification.

Well, we might not even need different commands. We need different
storage internally, but if you request the results for a given scan ID
then you might get a totally different result format? Though that
wouldn't lend itself well to query "everything you have" which is also
useful. But even then, it could be done by passing the appropriate
"report type" attribute to the dump command - we need that anyway for
trigger.

I think with that discussion we're getting ahead of ourselves though -
do we really know that we just need the two result types

 * full, and
 * partial (for history scan)

and have we even defined the attributes we want in the partial one?

johannes