RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

Only as a mandatory extension and only by effectively redeploying *all*
existing SOAP nodes. Without a targeting mechanism, it furthermore
becomes very difficult to not just have passive forwarders. This all has
a *very* high cost and will be fragile as a result.

We had this discussion a long time ago - I would strongly recommend
focusing on solving the outstanding issues of which there are plenty
rather than going back in circles.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

>+1, in fact, +asmanyasIcangetawaywith
>I would be heavily in favour of removing actor from Part 1 and 
>defining an extension for whatever 'actorlike' features we 
>decide we need. I would also strongly suggest that we define 
>said extension outside of our current path to REC. Many of the 
>current issues we have to resolve are to do with actor and/or 
>intermediaries. Pushing this out into an extension that is 
>defined post 1.2 seems like an ideal way of keeping ( getting 
>us back? ) on schedule.
>I've already done a *lot* of thinking about actor and I'm 
>fairly convinced that it *can* be done as an extension. 
>Hopefully I'll get chance to post some of my thoughts/designs 
>in the next week.

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 09:30:03 UTC