Re: fixing "application message" mess

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > The above negotiations (automated or via configuration files) are
> > unavoidable anyway!
>
> A valid question still is whether such negotiations should be built
> into OCP or not. I'm not taking either side (yet :), just saying
> that pros and cons should be looked at before we start adding more
> and more to OCP itself.

Absolutely. That is why I explicitly said "or via configuration
files". The scope of OCP negotiations is yet to be determined. I hope
we can make that determination after Reinaldo Penno suggests the first
negotiation mechanisms.

> For example, one might also imagine that the OCP application to be
> used is (implicitely) indicated by the service to be called (and its
> description). Meaning, if an OPES processor decides to do a callout
> in order to execute Service A, one might assume that the description
> of Service A also tells the OPES processor what OCP application to
> use (likewise for the callout server).

Yes, a very reasonable setup.

> Note, that there might be multiple 'services' with different OCP
> application bindings defined for one and the same callout
> application (e.g. a virus scanner accepting files via HTTP, SMTP,
> and plain).

Yes.

> It's fine if we're convinced that this should be built into OCP, and
> if we keep the mechanisms in OCP as simple as possible and stay
> within our scope.

We are not convinced yet :-). Reinaldo made some good points why
auto-negation is needed, and I think we need to wait for his
specification so that we can discuss specific trade-offs.

Alex.