On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, jfcm wrote:
At 22:58 11/04/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, jfcm wrote:
But the real point is that it shows a totally different logical
model and a different philiosophy of protocol. We have a fast pipe
with bypasses and loops. And no callout protocol.
An OPES system does not require the use of OCP. OPES processor can use
other means to adapt content, including adapting content using
processor's internal resources/code. OCP is just something generally
(but not universally) useful that we want to standardize, besides
other things that are OCP-independent (like tracing and bypass).
Thus, I do not see any "totally different" logical model or
philosophy in your example. What is the difference between a
chain/mesh of OPES processors and the model you describe?
Totally different is may be too big a word. However in my present
OPES model understanding it is, but I may be wrong. This is due
to the lack of proper layer modelization. Why would two chained
OPES have necessarily to fall down to http level and not to chose
to stay at callout protocol level?
The answer is very simple: an OPES processor will proxy application
protocol (e.g., HTTP) instead of "branching out" using the callout
protocol (e.g., OCP) when the processor is not interested in the
result of the adaptation that the next hop (the chained OPES
processor) will perform.
These kinds of decisions are usually done when interpreting the rules
at the first processor. Thus, the decision is really done by whoever
writes the processing rules.
Alex.