Why not? I think addition of new headers could be very useful in the rule
processing loop. Here is an example:
Rule #1) if user-id == LilyYang, do "language detection of the page"
(a proxylet).
Rule #2) if user-id == LilyYang && language==
anything-other-than-English-or-Chinese, do "translation into English" (an
ICAP service).
In the first "language detection" proxylet, a new header is added (language)
to indicate the result. The second rule would depend upon this new header to
decide whether or not to do translation.
Lily
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajnish Pandey
[mailto:Rajnish(_dot_)Pandey(_at_)india(_dot_)sun(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 12:45 PM
To: lily(_dot_)l(_dot_)yang(_at_)intel(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: OPES ARCHITECTURE for rule processing and service execution
Hi,
Step 9:
.......add new headers ......
I think , there should be only modification of headers and
no addition.If rule
base is based on N headers , then property set should contain
all those N
headers . If that header value couldn't be obtained from
message , then that can
be considered as NULL , which can be later modified .
---------------------------------------------
Issue regarding ICAP service call .
Modification of header values in case of local proxlets can
be done using
library functions and hence property set can be modified
reliably . But in case
of ICAP service calls , there should be some way of informing
the OPES
environment , that few properties can be modified .Can we
provide this
information in Rule File ( XML file ) along with the "action" field .
Comments Welcome .
Rajnish