> > What about not reinventing the wheel and implementing my own listening > > loop, and run Rugby server in main-server? What would be needed? Simply to > > teach external environments Rugby protocol. So now few questions - > > > > You are right. But RUgby was Inter-REBOL to now. >
Of course, I know that .... > > - would it be possible to adapt Rugby the plug-in way (or just separate > > versions), that would use tcp, http, xml-rpc, soap (in future for those who > > will need it) transport mechanisms? I think that it is possible, as you > > offer xml-rpc? OTOH this one is not probably so important (at least for me > > now), as I looked at Visual Objects classes for e.g., and there is nice > > HTTP class implementation. The same will probably go for Delphi, VB etc. > > IDEs. > > > > On your OTOH: Yes. The plugins are actually the handlers on top of hipe. > Consider Rugby itself a plugin. RebXR SE is just another. Eh, so what acutally RebXR is? I thought that Rugby lives on top of Hipe server, and that http layer is just plug-in to Rugby, and can be exchanged using XML-RPC for e.g., or SOAP, or custom one. But OTOH, actually - there is only one transport mechanism in reality - TCP layer - even HTTP lives on top of it. So, how to make it cleverly configurable? Because if we would like to implement custom Rugby protocol, we would probably have to change whole Rugby layer? > > - let's suppose we use current HTTP transport mechanism. Is it possible to > > have Rugby protocol a little bit more abstracted? I mean - currently - > > result of following line seem to be added to http header, right? But that > > is not all, as in the case of compression internal part of Rugby message is > > compressed, and I am not even talking checksum/secure part, which I don't > > know how to reproduce in external language. And I am not better even > > mentioning secured connection :-) > > > > I could see if I can make the checksumming optional in the config dialect. > The [*** and ***] are in the post variable, which is a string, as begin and > end-point markers. That should be no problem. > > OTOH, I may develop the Rugby bridge on top of hipe. Just a different handler > ready to rock with the rest of the world. What would such a protocol look > like (I ask you as you live in the world that needs it). Surely HTTP based, > but then? > Well, the problem is I want it :-) If I really need it is another thing :-) I want to do some tests. Let's say the main task would be to accept query from some apps and send them to database engine. The easiest protocol is "http://server:9005?query-string - simply a GET method, containing e.g. command=exposed-rugby-func,par1=value ..... But currently, I have simply chaos in Regards to what and how should be implemented to have it the most clean way in regards to Rugby architecture. The only thing I know for sure is - if external app programmers can't simply create Rugby message structure, then no easy communication is possible :-) > I agree. And then marshaling libs in java, perl and whatever. Rebol rules ;-) > Yes, Rebol rules! :-) -pekr- -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
