On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
I think that the comment below refers to applying dispatch rules to
the result of a dispatch. I.e., assume the content is two parts,
{A,B}. That content triggers a modification to part B, resulting in
{A,B'}. The dispatch rules applied to {A,B'} trigger a modifiction to
A, resulting in {A',B'}.
OK. This seems to have nothing to do with OCP. This is about rule
processing, right?
What might happen in an implementation is that the first condition
would trigger a callout, causing the OPES processor to start sending
B to the callout server; the callout server would have logic asking
the OPES server if A existed, and if so, to send it also, so that it
can generate A' as a function of B'.
We need to decide whether OCP should support partial message exchange.
So far, I have assume a simple model when entire messages are
exchanged and there is no "give me part X" dialog. After the IETF
meeting, I tend to stay away from application specific parts (would
prefer to limit the language to byte ranges). However, without
application-specific parts, it becomes difficult to describe "part X"
unless the entire message is known (the callout server would not know
where X starts and where it ends).
Added this topic to the todo list.
I can see this happening, but I'm not sure how it affects the current
discussion about copying commitment.
Neither am I.
I think we need to be selecting the absolutely minimal set of
mechanisms to support transport of content to and from callout
servers. We should lean heavily towards mechanism reuse over
mechanism extension.
Yes, of course. The difficulty is in defining the "absolute minimum",
as usual.
Thanks,
Alex.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 at 08:55:02 -0700 (MST) Alex Rousskov said:
[Copied] flag applies to an application data chunk. Copying commitment,
if any, applies to several chunks (possibly the entire application
message).
> Dispatchers rules may say that (A+B ) calls for B only to be
> modified into B', and that (A+B' ) calls for A to be modified too,
> or in conjunction with B'.
Sorry, I do not follow. I do not understand what "(A+B) calls for B"
means.