Re: An analysis of mustUnderstand and related issues

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> >>  So we would not be able to express
> >> "headerA OR headerB" ? (That's
> >> fine; just wondering.)
>
> Right, in this proposal.  I tried to indicate that among the many reasons
> to be suspicious of this proposal is that it indeed heads one down the
> slippery slope leading to, for example, a Turing-complete language for
> expressing dependency rules.  I don't think we want to go there. [...]

I would be hesitant to go there as well!

> >> I think you need an additional bullet
> >> that says that a given actor processes
> >> headers according to the dependency graph
>
> I understand where you're going with this, but I'm a bit less sure than
> you are that this is appropriate.  I am a little reluctant to get into
> "telling an actor what to do."  I think that characterizing "an actor" is
> difficult. [...]

I have been rereading your proposal, and I think bullet 2 and 3 (section "one
possible design") might be just enough, ie give enough hints. (Bullet 2:
"[...] header [...] processed ahead of any dependent headers [...]"; bullet 3:
"[...] when processed [...] removed [...] and replaced with [...] has happened
[...]".)

Jean-Jacques.

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 04:27:24 UTC