Re: a question ONES again?

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, jfcm wrote:

> At 22:58 11/04/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, jfcm wrote:
> > > But the real point is that it shows a totally different logical
> > > model and a different philiosophy of protocol. We have a fast pipe
> > > with bypasses and loops. And no callout protocol.
> >
> >An OPES system does not require the use of OCP. OPES processor can use
> >other means to adapt content, including adapting content using
> >processor's internal resources/code. OCP is just something generally
> >(but not universally) useful that we want to standardize, besides
> >other things that are OCP-independent (like tracing and bypass).
> >
> >Thus, I do not see any "totally different" logical model or
> >philosophy in your example. What is the difference between a
> >chain/mesh of OPES processors and the model you describe?
>
> Totally different is may be too big a word. However in my present
> OPES model understanding it is, but I may be wrong. This is due
> to the lack of proper layer modelization. Why would two chained
> OPES have necessarily to fall down to http level and not to chose
> to stay at callout protocol level?

The answer is very simple: an OPES processor will proxy application
protocol (e.g., HTTP) instead of "branching out" using the callout
protocol (e.g., OCP) when the processor is not interested in the
result of the adaptation that the next hop (the chained OPES
processor) will perform.

These kinds of decisions are usually done when interpreting the rules
at the first processor. Thus, the decision is really done by whoever
writes the processing rules.

Alex.