On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
The above negotiations (automated or via configuration files) are
unavoidable anyway!
A valid question still is whether such negotiations should be built
into OCP or not. I'm not taking either side (yet :), just saying
that pros and cons should be looked at before we start adding more
and more to OCP itself.
Absolutely. That is why I explicitly said "or via configuration
files". The scope of OCP negotiations is yet to be determined. I hope
we can make that determination after Reinaldo Penno suggests the first
negotiation mechanisms.
For example, one might also imagine that the OCP application to be
used is (implicitely) indicated by the service to be called (and its
description). Meaning, if an OPES processor decides to do a callout
in order to execute Service A, one might assume that the description
of Service A also tells the OPES processor what OCP application to
use (likewise for the callout server).
Yes, a very reasonable setup.
Note, that there might be multiple 'services' with different OCP
application bindings defined for one and the same callout
application (e.g. a virus scanner accepting files via HTTP, SMTP,
and plain).
Yes.
It's fine if we're convinced that this should be built into OCP, and
if we keep the mechanisms in OCP as simple as possible and stay
within our scope.
We are not convinced yet :-). Reinaldo made some good points why
auto-negation is needed, and I think we need to wait for his
specification so that we can discuss specific trade-offs.
Alex.