Some technical information about the current implementation
of serialization may be in order:
As long as no procedures or continuations are serializated,
it shouldn't be too hard to add more robustness and portability
to its format. But once procedures enter the scene things
can get so ugly, that
On 12 Nov, 2005, at 13:58, felix winkelmann wrote:
I'm not sure how to proceed, though.
One approach would be to translate the binary output into a tagged/
marked-up format like *gasp* XML...
A sender would do something like write a tagged/marked-up (number-
string n). What a receiver
I think you're describing a more complicated version of WRITE and READ.
On 11/12/05, Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One approach would be to translate the binary output into a tagged/
marked-up format like *gasp* XML...
A sender would do something like write a tagged/marked-up (number-
Am 12.11.2005, 14:48 Uhr, schrieb Sean Doran [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12 Nov, 2005, at 13:58, felix winkelmann wrote:
I'm not sure how to proceed, though.
One approach would be to translate the binary output into a tagged/
marked-up format like *gasp* XML...
[...]
Hello,
CHICKEN already
I was testing out the RPC egg and noticed it didn't work between a Mac
and a PC. This stems from endian issues in the s11n egg. Now, I
don't know if serialization was ever intended to work across
architectures, but I went ahead and made a simple patch [attached] to
the s11n egg. With this, the
Am 11.11.2005, 22:30 Uhr, schrieb Zbigniew [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was testing out the RPC egg and noticed it didn't work between a Mac
and a PC. This stems from endian issues in the s11n egg. Now, I
don't know if serialization was ever intended to work across
architectures, but I went ahead and
