XML-RPC out of Rugby?
[1/7] from: koopmans::itr::ing::nl at: 28-Jan-2002 9:49
Hi,
As Rugby is capable of much more than XML-RPC I am thinking of making it
standalone based on the Rugby IO engine. And moving it out of Rugby.
Is that a good idea?
--Maarten
[2/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 28-Jan-2002 10:05
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Rugby is capable of much more than XML-RPC I am thinking of making it
> standalone based on the Rugby IO engine. And moving it out of Rugby.
>
> Is that a good idea?
I don't understand the model now. - I don't know what Rugby IO engine stands
for exactly. I thought it is easy as following:
- rugby uses two transport mechanisms - tcp and http (allowing to overcome
proxies/firewalls)
- XML-RPC is protocol wrapped in http layer. There can be planty of them.
The same could be said about http itself (just one of tcp protocols family).
But the truth probably is, that http is enought to be regarded low-level for
Rugby, while XML-RPC lives really in upper layer.
If you want, make some isolation and modularity in a following way:
tcp http
------- ------------
XML-RPC|SOAP|Other
That's just my opinion - XML-RPC is in no way different to http protocol,
than is SOAP, or anything else using http as a transport layer ...
... but also ... maybe I am just confused :-)
-pekr-
[3/7] from: brett:codeconscious at: 28-Jan-2002 20:32
If it can be made clear how the XML-RPC functionality builds on / interfaces
with Rugby then it sounds great. Could
be useful as a demonstration in case other people want to build other
interfaces / modules in the same way.
Brett.
[4/7] from: koopmans:itr:ing:nl at: 28-Jan-2002 10:39
Well, it works slightly different right now:
TCP HTTP XML-RPC
| | |
| | |
Handler- based IO engine (hipe)
So... each one lives in its own space. Integrating XML-RPC and HTTP transport
can be done, but I'd rather tear it off in a separate release, as the XML-RPC
builts on top of Gavin's and Andreas' work. It will be easier to integrate
updates then.
I also like to concentrate on the modules and so on, in stead of XML-RPC.
--Maarten
[5/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 28-Jan-2002 11:05
Maarten Koopmans wrote:
> Well, it works slightly different right now:
>
> TCP HTTP XML-RPC
> | | |
> | | |
> Handler- based IO engine (hipe)
>
> So... each one lives in its own space.
Well, in Rugby - yes ... but, isn't XML-RPC http based procotol?
> Integrating XML-RPC and HTTP transport
> can be done, but I'd rather tear it off in a separate release, as the XML-RPC
> builts on top of Gavin's and Andreas' work. It will be easier to integrate
> updates then.
> I also like to concentrate on the modules and so on, in stead of XML-RPC.
I can second this. Please leave XML-RPC for later - let's have clear and
powerfull Rebol implementation first ...XML-RPC could be brought back in form of
a module later, no? Or what is your module system supposed to isolate?
Well, I know my opinion will probably make XML-RPC fans nervous ;-)
-pekr-
[6/7] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 28-Jan-2002 4:59
> As Rugby is capable of much more than XML-RPC I am thinking of making it
> standalone based on the Rugby IO engine. And moving it out of Rugby.
>
> Is that a good idea?
How does that fit with RebXR?
http://earl.strain.at/space/rebXR
./Jason
[7/7] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 28-Jan-2002 22:05
Hi Maarten,
<< As Rugby is capable of much more than XML-RPC I am thinking of making it
standalone based on the Rugby IO engine. And moving it out of Rugby.
Is that a good idea? >>
I think that's a good idea. The simpler the core pieces are, the better,
IMO.
--Gregg