Rugby... the next generation
[1/6] from: maarten::koopmans::surfnet::nl at: 21-Apr-2003 14:06
Hi List,
I need some input for the nex-generation Rugby.
These are your options:
1) I make the server engine fully asynchronous. Might be a bit faster.
2) I make everything asynchronous, but you loose the HTTP support.
Faster applications.
3) Like 2, but with cusom http support. No proxy support.
4) Rugby stays as it is. Instead a full-blown messaging kernel is
released additionally for passing dialects around. Asynchronous, with
streaming up/down support as well, TCP based.
5) Like 4, but custom http based. No proxies.
My time is limited, so you can pick only one. Of course my work can be
prioritized ;-)
My current choice would be 4, as Rugby is pretty stable and mature and a
message kernel may have lots of added value.
Send your votes...
--Maarten
[2/6] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 21-Apr-2003 15:59
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
> Hi List,
> I need some input for the nex-generation Rugby.
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
> Send your votes...
> --Maarten
some form of 1) should be native part of rebol imo .... as your time is
limited, maybe 4 is the best option - but - what is the problem of proxy
support?
-pekr-
[3/6] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 21-Apr-2003 8:23
Hi Maarten,
MK> I need some input for the nex-generation Rugby.
MK> These are your options:
MK> 1) I make the server engine fully asynchronous. Might be a bit faster.
MK> 2) I make everything asynchronous, but you loose the HTTP support.
MK> Faster applications.
MK> 3) Like 2, but with cusom http support. No proxy support.
MK> 4) Rugby stays as it is. Instead a full-blown messaging kernel is
MK> released additionally for passing dialects around. Asynchronous, with
MK> streaming up/down support as well, TCP based.
MK> 5) Like 4, but custom http based. No proxies.
I think I would vote for #4. I haven't had any speed problems with
Rugby, and I do like that it is very stable. If you create an async
messaging kernel, that will be useful on its own, but showing how to
combine the two would be the icing on the cake.
-- Gregg
[4/6] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 22-Apr-2003 8:19
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:06:19 +0200
Maarten Koopmans <[maarten--koopmans--surfnet--nl]> wrote:
>My current choice would be 4, as Rugby is pretty stable
>and mature and a
> message kernel may have lots of added value.
>
>Send your votes...
4
--
Graham Chiu
http://www.compkarori.com/vanilla/
[5/6] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 21-Apr-2003 19:31
Hi Maarten,
> 1) I make the server engine fully asynchronous. Might be a bit faster.
> 2) I make everything asynchronous, but you loose the HTTP support.
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> a message kernel may have lots of added value.
> Send your votes...
4 sounds great to me.
Thanks, Rod.
Rod Gaither
[rgaither--triad--rr--com]
Oak Ridge, NC USA
[6/6] from: louisaturk:coxinet at: 21-Apr-2003 19:24
At 07:31 PM 4/21/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Maarten,
>>1) I make the server engine fully asynchronous. Might be a bit faster.
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
>>Send your votes...
>4 sounds great to me.
I vote for 4 also.
Louis
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted