On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Reinaldo wrote:
1 - Is there anybody here that thinks the end points should talk to
the callout server directly? Or know of its existence (apart from
tracing/events)....I didn't hear anybody expressing this opinion. It
seems the the consensus is that the end points only talk to the OPES
processor.
I think the main problem is with things like bypass, not tracing, but
please read on.
I still hold that the opes processor do whatever it needs to
honor a service request. If it use a callout server, does the
processing itself, use the callout server for Bob, but not for Jane,
does not matter, as long as you get the proper tracing messages if
you want to/something goes wrong. It's just a black box from the end
point perspective.
I sense a terminology conflict here. If something is a black box, it
can be only bypassed as a whole, and there can be only one trace entry
(black box #7) per black box. OPES users may need more granularity, up
to the services level. Markus suggested that services should be
traceable and provides good arguments in support of that requirement.
I noted that once services are traceable (hence known) some users may
want to bypass one service but not another (e.g., filter viruses but
not porn). Overall this makes the black box analogy inappropriate.
What we seem to be dealing with is a "semi-transparent" OPES box. The
ends are able to see/address the OPES processor and are also able to
see (but not address directly) OPES services.
Do you agree that users may have service-specific (not just OPES
box-specific) preferences? Or do we provide tracing without any
OPES-specific way to use the information?
Thanks,
Alex.