• HOME
  • DATEX II
    • Background
    • Organisation
    • Standardisation
  • News
  • Download
    • Archive
      • 2.0 Release Candidates
        • 2.0 RC1
        • 2.0 RC2
      • 1.0
    • Brochure
    • Info
  • Deployments
    • Datex nodes directory
    • DII extension directory
  • Forum
  • Issues
    • Info
  • User Forum
    • Berlin 2010
    • Stockholm 2012
  • Contacts
    • Links
    • Mail
Search

User login
  • Create new account
  • Request new password

DATEX II newsletter

Stay informed on our latest news!

Previous issues

You have come to the right place for information on DATEX. The standard for the exchange of traffic related data.

This website is gradually growing, visit often to benefit from updates as soon as possible.


Home | Forums | DATEX II | General
  • Login or register to post comments
1 reply [Last post]
Wed, 04/08/2010 - 10:40
tori
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 26 weeks ago
Joined: 15/07/2010

Hello,
In Exchange PSM it is specified, that "A subscription is a necessary pre-condition for data exchange. Without a subscription, data delivery is not possible." (for both pull and push modes), but in developer guide's section about client pull it is mentioned, that "There is no subscription".

Did I miss something?

If there is a subscription for a pull mode then how can client provide a subscription reference to the supplier when making a pull request?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Fri, 13/08/2010 - 10:19
#1
Josef Kaltwasser
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 28/05/2009
Same word, different meanings?

Hello Tomas,

I think that your problem might be caused by the fact that the authors of the two documents use the word "subscription" with different semantics. If you look at p. 29/30 of the Exchange PSM, the characteristics of a "subscription" include very basic things like the Internet address of the supplier system. I feel the author of the Developers guide uses the same term in a more restricted way, especially in the context of supplier push with partial updates where a real shared context between supplier and any individual client is needed, since the supplier will only send changed, relevant information compared to the current "knowledge" of the client and his filter settings. Hence, the supplier must have the required information about this client knowledge (per client).

Anyway, you encountered an inconsistency which needs to be removed. I will enter an issue in the Issue Tracking systems ("ISSUES" menu item). As a registered user, you can do this yourself in the future.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments

All the DATEX activities are supported by the EasyWay Project and co-funded by the European Commission      

Privacy - Policy

Hosted by Autostrade per l'Italia.