Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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