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

Rugby revival

 [1/6] from: maarten:vrijheid at: 14-Aug-2003 8:25


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? - 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? If you want a preview of the current alpha, let me know privately and I'll send it to you one of these days. --Maarten

 [2/6] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 14-Aug-2003 9:22


Hi Maarten, MK> - How should the functions be named? You'll have rexec, sexec, serve and MK> get-rugby-service. Should they be changed? Not a big deal to me if they should change, since I'd be changing the code that uses them anyway. I'm all for clear names. MK> - What other functionality should be present? I know that some people MK> want more fine-grained access control than IP numbers, but are there MK> other features you'd wish? One of my favorite features is ease of use. You can add whatever you want as long as I can do the basics with a minimum of code (i.e. as little as possible for me to screw up :). MK> - I am planning to release all this under the GPL with the option to buy MK> a non-gpl license (including redistribution) in the $50-100 range. Given MK> that I've put a lot of my time in it that seems reasonable to me, but MK> what do you think? Your call entirely; as long as there is a commercial license of some kind available. It does mean you couldn't use it with a project released under BSD though, correct? I've avoided GPL until now because it forces me to think more about what the details all mean. :) Thanks for keeping Rugby alive! -- Gregg

 [3/6] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
>- 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>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?

 [4/6] from: maarten:vrijheid at: 14-Aug-2003 18:07


> MK> - How should the functions be named? You'll have rexec, sexec,
serve
> and > MK> get-rugby-service. Should they be changed? > > Not a big deal to me if they should change, since I'd be changing the > code that uses them anyway. I'm all for clear names. >
OK, then I 'll stick to the legacy conventions ;-)
> MK> - What other functionality should be present? I know that some
people
> MK> want more fine-grained access control than IP numbers, but are
there
> MK> other features you'd wish? > > One of my favorite features is ease of use. You can add whatever you > want as long as I can do the basics with a minimum of code (i.e. as > little as possible for me to screw up :).
OK, you just want get-rugby-service, serve and rexec like they are then. I am trying to stay as close to the current functionality as possible, but with async added.
> MK> - I am planning to release all this under the GPL with the option
to
> buy > MK> a non-gpl license (including redistribution) in the $50-100 range. > Given > MK> that I've put a lot of my time in it that seems reasonable to me,
but
> MK> what do you think? > > Your call entirely; as long as there is a commercial license of some > kind available. It does mean you couldn't use it with a project > released under BSD though, correct? I've avoided GPL until now because > it forces me to think more about what the details all mean. :) >
You are correct, but in that case I'm always willing to work something out. And I don't like complexity too much myself (w/r to licensing). --Maarten

 [5/6] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 14-Aug-2003 10:51


Hi Maarten, MK> OK, you just want get-rugby-service, serve and rexec like they are then. MK> I am trying to stay as close to the current functionality as possible, MK> but with async added. Compatibility is good, but as long as it's simple to use--the way Rugby is now--anything is OK with me. -- Gregg

 [6/6] from: maarten:vrijheid at: 14-Aug-2003 21:57


> >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 ....
The security framework is built on top of the rexec layer so that's impossible.
> 50 - 100 per seat? per project? or buy-once, use everwhere?
Buy once, use everywhere.
> > > 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? >
Storm is a messaging engine. This has its merits, but Rugby may be more convenient for some as it is more "traditional" RPC. If you know how to code both will do the job, but Rugby is probably easier to use for most people. --Maarten

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted