Geetha Manjunath wrote:
* Putting the two together and extrapolating, we see the need for a call
of the form:
Services.applyOne(spamSevice, SMTP.body)
Thus my comment ...
Hm, I've to admit that I'm not sure I fully understood your
explanations. However, in above statement, it seems that all you do is
executing a service on the message body - that's different from
defining a rule basd on the content of the message payload.
I simply have serious doubts that it makes sense to define a rule like
"if message body contains the string 'blablabla', then do...". Imagine
you download a 4Gb movie and you'd have to scan the entire payload on
the OPES processor, just to determine whether a service has to be
executed... As such, I'm not (yet?) convinced that such
flexibility/complexity is needed.
Now, if we want to limit the scope of 'P' to just a re-syntaxing of IRML
and making the rule language protocol agnostic, that is a decision of
scoping again, I guess.... Not sure how many would want it that way..
Not me ;-)
Our current charter/timeline does not allow for an extension of scope.
If this is desired, it should be discussed as potential item for
re-charter, which would also provide us realistic timeline for getting
a good job done.
For now, my view is that 'P' has to be finished within the scope
outlined in earlier discussions around IRML - this seems like a
realistic goal in the short time we still have. Scope extensions,
interfaces, etc. should be (and already have been) proposed as
possible items for re-charter.
-Markus