On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Geetha Manjunath wrote:
* Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to
call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would
see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very
simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto
services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response.
These functions are services themselves and should be invoked by the
rules, rather then trying to "programm" them in the rules.
If a function like "adding of authentication controls" is needed, a
little service doing this can be written, and a rule can be specified
to invoke this service.
I agree.
* Writing modules in 'P': Since a set of rules themselves may
need to be reused many a times, we may want to create customized
reusable modules in 'P'
Thats sounds worthwhile to consider (but already goes beyond the
charter discussion perse, I would assume).
We would benefit from explicitly including code reuse (user-defined
functions and modules) in P scope, I think. It makes P more complex
and more powerful/useful. If this is in the charter, then we would not
have to argue again whether the added complexity is worth the
benefits.
Please note that user-defined functions are NOT user-defined actions.
I know I was sloppy about this terminology in the past.
(d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets
to the OPES processor.
Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing ones), but
out of scope of the WG.
Agreed, at least for this iteration of the charter.
Alex.