Re: [Gzz] Re: Available overlays PEG

[hemppah]

Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:57:36AM +0300, address@hidden wrote:
> > Quoting Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:24:55AM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > > > Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > > > >>OpenGL is different because it implements a completely different 
> > > > >>interface than AWT offering different capabilities &c. This is more
> like
> > > 
> > > > >>deciding in Kaffe which implementation of AWT (X-based? QT-based? 
> > > > >>win32-based?) is default.
> > > > >
> > > > >And tapestry provides DOLR, not DHT. Thus it *is* analogous.
> > > > 
> > > > We'll use it to implement exactly the same functions as before, which
> 
> > > > includes using a DHT layer built on top of it. If we couldn't do that,
> 
> > > > we probably couldn't use Tapestry.
> > > 
> > > Ok. But I still see it as a part of architecture -- probably just
> > > because we define architecture differently ;)
> > 
> > 
> > Despite Tapestry "implementes" DOLR, 
> 
> English correction:
> 
>       Even though Tapestry implements the DOLR abstraction,


Ouch...indeed, thanks!


> 
> > Tapestry's API is identical to DHT for
> > application. 
> 
> Really? Or do you mean that a DHT-like API can be *constructed* 
> on top of tapestry? I think tapestry can do more than just DHT.


(wrong word "identical")

Constructed; And yes, Tapestry can do more than DHT, e.g. IM-like chat services
with point-to-point message routing.


-Hermanni





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/