Re: [DotGNU]Re: [Vrs-development] Defining WebServices (NetServices???)

[Peter Minten]

Chris Smith wrote:
> 
> Sorry, this got a bit long.  Kind of a brain vent as to my intentions of the
> DGEE and the webservice model, what I expect to happen when it is released,
> and how we should proceed.
> 
> Peter, the code examples were useful - especially so as demonstration of
> thought processes,  and DO fit in with the architecture of the DGEE, but I
> can't say that it'd be how you expect as I'm not you!

It appears I chose my words rather poorly, sorry :-(. 

I was overcautious about .NET compatiblity causing DotGNU to lose flexibility in
dealing with other languages. It's a good idea to get a working implementation
of DGEE, but such an implementation must not be dependend on IL like stuff on
the design level, since it will probably be the basis of the future DGEE. 

With the two path approach I didn't mean a fork (just in case it looked like
that), but just that some folks should keep track of the more long term stuff
while other folks get things working on the short term.

Reading your mail I can only come to the conclusion that I overreacted and that
there is no reason to be worried about possible incompatiblity problems. You are
certainly on the right track with the getting-a-prototype-ready approach. 

> Peter, The other reason for getting the DGEE done was so everyone could see
> what the architecture looks like, how the internal API's work, how the
> scaling model works and how messages get passed about.  I admit that I have
> found it very difficult to explain what I have in mind, as it's based on a
> lot of techniques that I've been using with customers over the last few years
> and a lot of developers see them as alien concepts and miss the point.
> [Sorry: Sweeping statement, applies to the engineering community in general,
> there is a significant proportion of people on the dg-ml who DO think the
> same way as me, just with different terminology]. There's nothing new in the
> concepts I feel, but they often seem to be different to other peoples initial
> direction.  This is not to say that they are necessarily correct, but from
> experience I do get a gut feeling when this type of architecture 'Is The
> One...' and find that the design literally falls into place.  I have such a
> gut feeling on this occasion. Whether other people in the dotgnu community
> agree with little-ol-me is up for debate, and for that I need to demonstrate
> what I'm on about, and get the prototype out!
> 
> >From this the 'make it better' (including the morph into SEE and VRS) can be
> done, but I'd suggest waiting to see what the architecture looks like before
> starting to design code. By that I'm saying: As soon as you start designing
> data structures you've definitely got to have some idea as to how system
> components (whether they by functions, libraries or services) are going to
> interact.  This interaction idea may change once the community has started
> playing with and using the DGEE.  So I'm not really saying don't design code
> - far from it! - but just that I expect the ground to shift in January.

You're right here.

Greetings,

Peter