Concerns about the Response_set interface

[Greg Hudson]

On 07/17/2012 12:45 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> For these reasons, I think it would be better to review this
> architecture along with a specific non-trivial proposal for using this
> architecture. I believe that should be OTP. I'd hate to be in a position
> where we're reviewing the OTP client plugin integration and we conclude
> that response_sets are the wrong approach for that and something else is
> needed.

We're going to take a step back and integrate the OTP client plugin
sooner than we had been planning to, then redesign the response set
enhancement to meet the GSSAPI constraints.

The general idea is that we will use flat questions and answers, and
then provide public marshalling functions for OTP where the questions
are complicated (the answers are simpler, but still involve a little
marshalling).