RE: Call for censensus on path forward

> Dinakaran> A simple logical operations for filtering would be a very
> Dinakaran> good thing.
> 
> Ok, so you'd like to be able to use more complex expressions like:
> 
> (column1 > 100) && ((column2 < 1 || column3 =~ /some.*thing/ ||
>                     (column8 == 8 && column9 == 9)))
> 
> Right?  Based on your statement, and the fact that Carl Kalbfleisch
> and David Perkins submitted allowing similar expressions, I'm going to
> take it that this feature is more desired than not.  I'm really
> interested in hearing from anyone that opposes this level of
> complexity being thrown into the protocol.  As I said at the bottom of
> my last draft, I didn't throw this in because I didn't think people
> would like it since it would impose even more requirements on the
> agent side of things.  Any agent developers want to say something
> negative about complex filtering, otherwise it'll go into my next
> draft (in an easy to parse way [read: nested BER sequences]).
> 

In general, I think we should think twice (if not 3 times) before we
start to add complexity. We have seen over and over that we tend to
over-design all sorts of features that then turn out to never be
used by operators. So not only would I like to understand implications
that agent developers see... I would also want to know/hear if operators
feel that this makes sense.

Bert