On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:54:51PM +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
[priority]
in which case the content of this field is very dependant on which
notification mechanism that is in use.
Actually not, the content should be mapped to values expected by the
notification mechanism.
Will we be able to find a single priority value that can be mapped to
all methods and does that suffice? If so, great, but I doubt it.
Exim uses URIs in some places and has the same problem of requiring
additional parameters that are not part of the URI, e.g. authenticated
and timeout parameters for LDAP URIs. Its solution is to use strings
like:
"attribute1=value1 attribute2=value2 URI"
Perhaps my suggestion of introducing ":from" was a bad idea and it should
be dropped along with ":priority", adding something like ":attributes",
that passes a string list of attribute-value pairs to the method,
leaving it up to the method definition or even the implementation which
attribute to process:
notify :attributes ["priority=low","from=sender(_at_)domain"]
"mailto:0123456789(_at_)gateway";
notify :attributes ["route=immediate","from=0123456789"] "sms:0123456789" ;
The priority attribute may indeed set X-Priority, and even be specified
as such, but I don't see how to map it to SMS. The gateways I know
offer different routes with names depending on the providers, offering
different service qualities.
Just a suggestion. So far, I am not real happy either way.
Michael