P issues for f2f discussion

Hi,

        Here are some big P-issues that may be worth discussing at the
upcoming F2F meeting.

        1. What information does the interpreter has
           access to? Complete messages? Just meta-information?
           Anything that is small? Do we define that,
           does the module author, or does the ruleset
           writer?

        2a. Should this WG work on defining interface(s)
            between P interpreters and module suppliers?

        2b. Should this WG work on defining interface(s)
            between P interpreters and callout services?

        3. Is single-assignment worth keeping if we agree
           that P deals only with small objects that are
           cheap to copy?

        4. Should more support for writing modules natively
           in P be added? How much more support is needed?

        5. Should this WG document HTTP module for P?
           As a part of HTTP Adaptation draft or a separate
           document references from the adaptation draft?

        6. If service invocation is just a module method
           call, how do services return results? Should OCP core
           document ways to return P-result via the OCP-result
           structure? See also 2b.

Thanks,

Alex.