[REBOL] Re: Rugby-core syntax
From: koopmans:itr:ing:nl at: 11-Feb-2002 13:24
> > Some clarifications:
> >
> > - the tcp://:port-no is close to REBOLs syntax for opening a server port.
> > This is especially important when you have multiple network interfaces in
> > a machine, so that you can do tcp://:networkif-of-your-choice:portnumber
> > So that's why it won't change.
>
> But ... :-)) No, really, just kidding. OTOH - take it from user's
> perspective - what other network interface are you talking about here?
> Maybe it is just me not understanding something. If you open tcp://:9005
> listen port, you can't open any http://:9005 or xml-rpc://:9005 on the same
> one. Or what do you mean by multiple network interfaces here? And after all
> - as you said - it is transparent, so stating serve/with-port [echo] 9005
> would be clean too ...
I mean two different assigned IP addresses on the same machine, a situation
commonly encountered when dealing with multiple subnets.
> > - No security refinements. Currently the security framework is completely
> > independant of the real rugby core (rexec). It builds on top of that. The
> > only thing in rugby that knows about sexec is the part tha builds stubs,
> > but that may change as well. The upside of this that you can remove
> > touchdown_* from the modules and the build script, and you have a smaller
> > Rugby that still works. The downside is that you don't have /secure as a
> > refinement but some extra functions (3).
>
> well, it is still solvable, isn't it? what about following:
>
> rexec: func [params /secure][
> if secure call-sexec-with-func-args ....
> ]
>
> > That is not to say that you may not add your own wrappers and submit them
> > to me ;-)
> >
As I said: you are free to do so. It is solvable, I have just reasons (good
ones IMHO) to do it differently.
> > - Rugby seems somewhat slower, but that is not the compression (although
> > that may be useless in some cases)
>
> OK, is every Rugby packet compressed or just Rugby headers? I think that
> it makes sense to compress stubs (textual info), but not data, because if
> you will compress some already compressed data (mp3. jpg, other), you can
> grow in size and 'compress itself will surely add to total communication
> time. I think that compression of data can be left to user level functions
> ...
All rugby data is compressed.
> btw I tried to remove 'compress and 'decompress from 'compose and
> 'decompose functions, but was getting an error. I wanted to measure a
> difference ...
Then you'd need to do the same in tunnel.r (the client).
> > but the http part. OTOH, http provides complete
> > transparency by default, without any pain if you have a REBOL supported
> > proxy/firewall. If I make all off these things configurable you end up
> > with a Websphere, and that's *not* what I want.
>
> Isn't Webshpere a professional product, done by professionals, sold by
> professional company? :-)
>
Exactly. They are outnumbered, at least qualitatively ;-)
> > And yes, Rugby is my software, but you are free to clone and abuse.
> > That's why the BSD license is there.
>
> I see no point in separate release. Rugby is young. If I am not comfort
> with something, I will let you know, along with my reasoning, examples,
> etc.
>
I know, and your feedback *is* appreciated. But some things are a matter of
taste, which is just that.
> PS: I looked at mobile code, but it does not seem to be modified to work
> with latest rugby, or does it?
>
Correct. I didn't think anybody would find it useful.
--Maarten
