RE: Efficacy of rule specification, processing

IMHO, we should only support things that are well-defined. System load seems
too vague to define and measure for example. Is that just CPU load?
Throughput? Memory? Disk usage? 
And don't forget, -- as Christian pointed out -- it is almost useless if the
rule engine can not support arithmetic operation to actually know what
"system load is low" means -- at the minimum you want to say "if x<50%" even
if you can measure x.  On the other hand, once you have variable and
arithmetic, we are not far away from scripting language as Micah pointed
out. Do we want to go that way? I would say no for now. Lets start simple.
That's just two-cents.
Lily

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:hofmann(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:22 PM
> To: Yang, Lily L
> Cc: Maciocco, Christian; 'Gamze Seckin'; 'ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org'
> Subject: Re: Efficacy of rule specification, processing
>
>
> "Yang, Lily L" wrote:
>  
> > Many of the dynamic behavior can be achieved with a set of 
> carefully written
> > rules -- the rules are static but the run time matching 
> will result in
> > dynamic behavior accordingly.
> And this run time matching requires a set of state variables - the
> question was which and how many. For example, should "local system
> load" be a run time variable for the rule language?
>
> -Markus