"Yang, Lily L" wrote:
I also noticed a change that "user-id" now is missing from the list of the
properties that are required. Instead, we have "client-ip" now. But the spec
also seems to suggest that it is ok to map the "id" against some other
unique identifier -- however, there is no mechanism in IRML to allow such
mapping happen explicitly, how does the rule engine know what property name
should be used? Maybe we should add a "mapping" attribute in the "id"
element, which can be default to "client-ip" if not specified.
With this rule module, the rule engine would look up the "client-login-name"
value in the properties and see if it matches. Does it make sense?
I somehow don't like the overloading of the "id" element as we've it
defined in IRML right now. Originally, the purpose of the "id" element
was to a have globally unique identifier for the rule author. We also
use this "id" element for checking whether a particular transaction is
relevant to a rule module, wherefore we assumed that the "id" element
contains all the domain names of the rule author (see section 3.1.3 of
the IRML draft) and checking would be done on the requested URL - not
a very nice solution and too limited.
We first should decide whether we want to use the "id" element for
such checking at all, and if yes, a solution as mentioned by Lily
would certainly be more flexible (i.e. specifying which property
should match the "id" value".