[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber (was Re: Microsoft guru: Stamp o

From: S11001001
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber (was Re: Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:43:19 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020219

Norbert Bollow wrote:
specifically to endorse (and thereby hopefully revive) the
"Jabber-as-Middleware" ideas, see

If/when Microsoft comes out with a new protocol of their own
(possibly endorsed by other industry giants as well) DotGNU
will have to support that also.  But if we push strongly enough
in the direction of establishing jabber:middleware as a
standard, I think that there is still a hope that it could
become the de-facto standard.

What are our alternatives to going for jabber:middleware ?
Hey, maybe you and Barry can bring Jabber under the meta-project umbrella ;) Seriously, though, this is very convincing, and sticks with the much-loved XML. But revival is a concern, whether in DotGNU or JSF or elsewhere (the article is mar 9 2001, for those who are too lazy to follow the link, though I gather the aforementioned discussion took place much later).

Also, the article references extending the SERVER. Maybe forking the code and/or rolling a library next in this proc, because Yet Another Daemon doesn't sound very appetizing, especially for RPC/whatever-protocol.

quit   When the quit statement is read, the  bc  processor
       is  terminated, regardless of where the quit state-
       ment is found.  For example, "if  (0  ==  1)  quit"
       will cause bc to terminate.
        -- seen in the manpage for "bc". Note the "if" statement's logic

reply via email to

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