[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 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]