[REBOL] Re: Rugby revival
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 14-Aug-2003 18:04
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am working on a new Rugby on top of the Storm engine, and I got the
>rexec layer working already (rugby was pretty modular, so I am mostly
>scrapping old code that had to with the network). TCP based in stead of
>http based as a side effect.
>
>So you'll have a rexec url [ function parameters ] or a rexec/async url
>[ function parameters ] call-back
>
>On the server side you just have the serve funcion.
>
>Later on I'll add get-rugby-service with stub generation and the secure
>transport layer.
>
>Some questions:
>- How should the functions be named? You'll have rexec, sexec, serve and
>get-rugby-service. Should they be changed?
>
I don't know if it is important for ppl have it modularised, so there
would be e.g. Rugby lite version and Rugby full version, which would
have security. But - if the size is not a big deal, I would vote for
single func, using refinements ....
rexec, rexec/secure, rexec/secure/async ... that way, you basically need
to remember only one function ...
>- What other functionality should be present? I know that some people
>want more fine-grained access control than IP numbers, but are there
>other features you'd wish?
>
>
>- I am planning to release all this under the GPL with the option to buy
>a non-gpl license (including redistribution) in the $50-100 range. Given
>that I've put a lot of my time in it that seems reasonable to me, but
>what do you think?
>
50 - 100 per seat? per project? or buy-once, use everwhere?
>If you want a preview of the current alpha, let me know privately and
>I'll send it to you one of these days.
>
so, in the end ... what is the real difference in old Rugby, and Rugby +
Storm? Or let's better ask - is Storm usable for fine app development
without Rugby? I still can't get the picture ... maybe you could mention
what kind of apps it would allow us to build?
