20 Jan
2003
20 Jan
'03
3:43 p.m.
/* still catching up on my backlog */
At 05:10 AM 1/16/2003, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
ok, I see. That should work too.
I'm currently refurbishing some of these parts and unless I do not discover
some shortcoming, I would like to have three different route blocks. route[]
(request processing), reply_route[] (request processing on receipt of reply)
and reply[] (reply processing). Along with an updated module interface, it
should add more sanity and allow easy syntactical checking of what action
can be used from what block type.
Your patches look reasonable and I'll do my best to align them to these
undergoing changes. Just bear with my pace -- I have currently too many
things to do.
-Jiri
I'm not
yet sure whether we should go for script programmability for
replies. Currently, "as is" it's imho quite unsafe. The script is now
built primarily for request processing. Applying some of the
request-processing actions to replies might possibly result in
unpredictable behaviour. For examples, attempts to manipulate uri's
might manipulate other things (union use), or when manipulating lump
list, request lump list (and not reply list) would be mistakenly used.
This is already handled properly by my patches for tm module - before
invoking do_acton() it replaces msg->add_rm with msg->repl_add_rm and
restores it after return from do_action().