Subject: P issues for f2f discussion

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:49:04 -0700 (MST)

Hi,

        Here are some big P-issues that may be worth discussing at the
upcoming F2F meeting.

	1. What information does the interpreter has
	   access to? Complete messages? Just meta-information?
	   Anything that is small? Do we define that,
	   does the module author, or does the ruleset
	   writer?

	2a. Should this WG work on defining interface(s)
	    between P interpreters and module suppliers?

	2b. Should this WG work on defining interface(s)
	    between P interpreters and callout services?

	3. Is single-assignment worth keeping if we agree
	   that P deals only with small objects that are
	   cheap to copy?

	4. Should more support for writing modules natively
	   in P be added? How much more support is needed?

	5. Should this WG document HTTP module for P?
	   As a part of HTTP Adaptation draft or a separate
	   document references from the adaptation draft?

	6. If service invocation is just a module method
	   call, how do services return results? Should OCP core
	   document ways to return P-result via the OCP-result
	   structure? See also 2b.

Thanks,

Alex.