[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices
From: |
Daniel E Baumann |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:17:46 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.23i |
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:30:13PM +0530, Gopal.V wrote:
> I would like to mention that I would like very much if GEAS becomes
> a webservice component. Since we need business products to support
> dotGNU, we need to work towards uniting GNUe and dotGNU. As I mentioned
> in an earlier mail, you chose a plugin glue for joining peices. Since I
> think CORBA is the most mature of the glues we have , I mentioned it.
Yes I wold also like to see this happening. However, GNUe is a little
more set on python as the language for most things and I am sure how
much dotGNU has looked at python. I like it more than Java and it
doesn't have the same "issues", however I don't wanna go on a language
flame war.
> > that object methods can even be implemented in different languages for
> > the same object (might be nice to have some core methods in C for
> > performance reasons) so this will lead way to a language plugin system.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are server side plugins right ?
> We want to communicate objects ( not only method access ) via a webservice,
> that is the whole idea of webservice components. I access your GEAS server
> and pass my data object to your processing object , getting back my result
> object. We are making remote processing practical as well as flexible. So
> a SOAP plugin would recieve the request parse it and give the object to the
> processor ( GEAS ? ). Then the processor would return the result to the
> appopriate plugin.
We can return whatever types...be it an object reference or a SOAP
object, etc. ODL/IDL allows for all of this sorta thing and we are using
our own class definition format right now (loosely based on ODL).
> > This is the "middleware" I envision for GEAS and I want to make it
> > generic enough for dotGNU, bonobo, etc.
> Well this plugin system is great as it allows different `transports'
> for communication. But I don't think you should think of dotGNU and bonobo
> as different aspects, dotGNU is all about integrating protocols. The XML
> protocols have an advantage here as we would only need an XSLT & templates.
I don't think of them as "different" aspects at all I think components
and web services are very much related.
--
Daniel E Baumann address@hidden
***Free Dmitry Sklyarov! Boycott Adobe! Repeal DMCA!***
And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community...if ``hard nosed
realists'' say that profit is the only ideal...just ignore them, and use
copyleft all the same.
-- RMS
- [DotGNU]Defining Webservices, Gopal.V, 2001/11/10
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices, Norbert Bollow, 2001/11/10
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices, Daniel E Baumann, 2001/11/10
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices, Gopal.V, 2001/11/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices => Language, Daniel E Baumann, 2001/11/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices => Language, Norbert Bollow, 2001/11/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Defining Webservices => Language, Daniel E Baumann, 2001/11/12
- [DotGNU]standards (was Re: Defining Webservices => Language), Norbert Bollow, 2001/11/12
- [DotGNU]Re: standards (was Re: Defining Webservices => Language), Daniel E Baumann, 2001/11/12