Re: P work in new charter

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.