[REBOL] Re: the answers
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 3-Apr-2001 9:12
Robert M. Muench
wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> > laplace
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:06 PM
> > To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> > Subject: [REBOL] Re: the answers
>
> > I mean about Component concept, reusability with interface beetween
> > components and that works inside a browser (like flash for
> > example). If you want to offer an interactive chart for example , how
> would
> > you do if you don't have component ?
>
> Hi, well there are two issues here:
>
> 1. Rebol/XYZ Browser plug-in-able
> I think this is a must-have to make Rebol the killer language. Think about
> being able to use the fat browsers as home for Rebol (SSL etc. can be used
> than) and have the user see a real nice interface inside the browser... no
> complaints like: Well, it looks nice but it's not standard, I want to use my
> browser...
>
yes, I talked about it with jeff in Express conference. Current plug-in just
knows only how to start Rebol and few other minor things. I told openly RT that
it will not be used at all - we need the ability to live inside of browser
window, or ppl will regard us being proprietary technology ....
But I can imagine that implementing something like this is not probably ease ...
But as you stated - it would definitely BE killer app.
> 2. Component concepts / protocolls
> Stuff like COM XYZ, JavaBeans, CORBA etc. are all component protocolls...
> and it's always a all-or-nothing concept. Mixing all these is very hard (if
> not impossible). So why use them? Just use the simple and straightforward
> concept like SOAP or Rebol, or whatevery ASCII readable format you wish.
> These can be translated quite easy. Robert
Absolutly agree here. Although I know why ppl want it - because of inner-OS IPC
(like Arexx on Amiga)
-pekr-
