Pim,
I'm not so sure whether this is an inexpensive operation. When you have a pipeline architecture this requires that the first module responsible for receiving must immediately parse the message and check the routing function. Both these operation would normally occur later on in the pipeline. So requiring this kind of support for all intermediaries requires a change in such an architecture.
I do see the use case you mention, but I question whether we need to always require support for this option, this could also be done in conformance profiles.
Sander
On 4 nov 2009, at 09:14, Pim van der Eijk wrote:
Some comment below, also see the proposed update in
separate message.
The idea is indeed that an intermediary should (default
case) check whether it is actually able to route a message, by checking if the
message matches a pattern in the routing table. This is an inexpensive
operation, different and separate from the more expensive operation of
actually performing the action associated with the pattern (e.g. push the
message forward to next hop, possibly SSL handshakes etc.). Especially
with SME endpoints connecting to an edge intermediary, getting this failure
instantly on the HTTP back-channel seems to me by far the preferred
option. They may not connect the intermediary for hours or days after
pushing out a message and would have no signal that anything went wrong, so
instant feedback is required. See the proposed
update.
|