On 17 Apr 2010, at 16:41, Bjørn Borud wrote: > I wouldn't use the word "impossible", nor would I expect something that can > support every conceivable scenario. But it would be useful to be able to > associate some properties with each request without the need for cluttering > the service definitions.
My use of the word "impossible" was intended to describe trying to cover all scenarios -- let alone even finding out what all of those might be. > yes, but it also helps if people agree on what changes are worth doing > rather than maintaining their own fork. Who said you couldn't spec it out communally and submit a patch? :-) Based on previous questions I've seen here regarding authentication, I know you're not the only one interested in such a thing. -- Brian
