Re: Efficacy of rule specification, processing

Andre Beck wrote:
 
> I am not so sure it makes much sense to add environment variables like
> local system load, # of client connections etc. to IRML. Consider for
> example an IRML rule module authored by a content provider or a client.
> Why should a content provider or a client have to worry about the system
> load of a specific OPES device when authoring IRML rule modules? Also,
> wouldn't an IRML rule evaluating the system load be OPES
> device-specific? How can this work if the same rule modules are to be
> distributed to different OPES devices?
>
> Therefore I think we should not add any OPES device-specific conditions
> like system load to IRML. If we allow late service binding in IRML, then
> the OPES device itself can handle things like load balancing.
Andre has some very valid points here, I've to agree. However, it
still seems to make sense to add something like "local system time"
etc. So, which are the variables we need to consider? Anything else
beyond time, which is of interest to the rule author (who could be a
content provider, service provider etc.)?

Now, does this mean that conditions based on (local) environment
variables other than time have to be handled completely locally, and
that this is a local implementation decision and, therefore, does not
have to be considered by OPES?

-Markus