Re: [discuss] GROUPWARE - Answered: Why "OOGS" ?

[Sander Vesik]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Dan Kuykendall wrote:

> > That's the API and protocol difference - if the API is agreed on, any
> > system (or app developer) can just write a skin deep wraper and make easy
> > use of it. And won't have to keep writing yet another OGS XML-RPC talking
> > libarary ...
> 
> Well if you can explain (hopefully in code) how this would work, Im all
> for it. As far as I can tell XML-RPC is the API and in most cases http
> would be the protocol. But the line is very blurred
> 

Sorry, was thinking more of client-side API at that moment. On the corba
side there would (hopefully) be one "standard" IDL for say accessing TODO
lists people would write their apps towards (using whatever library
implementing that), on plain C side there would be something similar to
the bsd socket api, etc.

So for exmaple if the OGS bonobo component was implemented say by
Evolution (which would, of course also use it itself), any bonobo
application could make use of the shared files / address book /
appointments/etc. without having to know - or care - how these were
implemented and from which other OGS environments they might be accessed.

And they wouln'dt even have to know what that component/ library uses to
talk to the server (might vary from system to system in somme point in the
future anyways).

>
> Seek3r
> 

        Sander

One day a tortoise will learn to fly
        -- Terry Pratchett, 'Small Gods'