Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
Thanks Stephen. On 7/27/05, Stephen Marley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote: > > I did not meant alternatives to RPC approach? i mean alternatives to > > the standard implementation code of rpc. > > > > I don't feel like considering (as you self said) garbage like corba, > > rx, rxml-rpc > > > > I am considering rpc/xdr but a different code implementation. > > There are several layers of api to ONC RPC. I suggest you read a book > like the O'Reilly kangaroo book, "Power programming with RPC". Sun > Microsystems gave away the rpc code, so I'd guess most implementations > are based on their code. > > -- > stephen
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote: > I did not meant alternatives to RPC approach? i mean alternatives to > the standard implementation code of rpc. > > I don't feel like considering (as you self said) garbage like corba, > rx, rxml-rpc > > I am considering rpc/xdr but a different code implementation. There are several layers of api to ONC RPC. I suggest you read a book like the O'Reilly kangaroo book, "Power programming with RPC". Sun Microsystems gave away the rpc code, so I'd guess most implementations are based on their code. -- stephen
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
Do you have any other suggestions where i could download alternatives for rpc? corba, rx, xml-rpc they all suck, just in different ways. /ian
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
I did not meant alternatives to RPC approach? i mean alternatives to the standard implementation code of rpc. I don't feel like considering (as you self said) garbage like corba, rx, rxml-rpc I am considering rpc/xdr but a different code implementation. Thanks for your reply. On 7/27/05, Ian Delahorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you have any other suggestions where i could download alternatives for > > rpc? > > corba, rx, xml-rpc > > they all suck, just in different ways. > > /ian
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
> 0) Functions return 1 for success and 0 for failure (i don't like that); Surely thats too trivial to hold a preference to? Most languages do it this way though.
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
Sorry, but i found that code very ugly. This is just a personal feeling and i cannot explain why!! do i seem crazy, probably i am. I believe the code i saw was very poor design. But that's a personal taste only and should not be under jugdment. 0) Functions return 1 for success and 0 for failure (i don't like that); 1) too many function call between the caller and the real funcionality; 2) function names are to big. Do you have any other suggestions where i could download alternatives for rpc? thanks. On 27 Jul 2005 07:51:52 +0200, Artur Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gustavo Rios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hey folks, > > > > i am doing efforts in order to learn about xdr/rpc. So, i decided to > > read some code in src/lib/libc/rpc. I found it to be a little heavy, > > cause there too many function invocation overhead between the caller > > and the "real" function that do the job. > > If I read correctly, it seems that you don't like fuction calls. > Why are functions bad? You prefer a macro and inline hell? > > //art
Re: openbsd & rpc/xdr
Gustavo Rios <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey folks, > > i am doing efforts in order to learn about xdr/rpc. So, i decided to > read some code in src/lib/libc/rpc. I found it to be a little heavy, > cause there too many function invocation overhead between the caller > and the "real" function that do the job. If I read correctly, it seems that you don't like fuction calls. Why are functions bad? You prefer a macro and inline hell? //art
