Re: .NET

2001-05-03 Thread John Barnette

Dave Storrs said:
> On 3 May 2001, Ilya Martynov wrote:
> > >> You can serialize/deserilize object with Storable
> > >>
> > >> $foo = new Bar
> > >> store_fd $foo, \*SOCKET;
> > >>
> > >> and on the other end
> > >>
> > >> $foo = retrieve_fd \*SOCKET;
> > >> $foo->bar;
> > >>
> > >> It will work if you have Bar module on both ends.
> >
> > DS> Right, but I want it to work if you don't...
> >
> > Then maybe SOAP::Lite? SOAP allows to serialize/deserialize objects
> > and make remote call. SOAP::Lite makes it quite transparent.
>
>
>   Errm...wasn't (something like) this discussed just recently and
> deemed a massive security hole?  If I download a program, I don't want to
> have to inspect every line of source to make that it won't download some
> bizarre Trojaned module (or even an object instantiated from that module,
> which is worse because it leaves fewer traces by not writing to disk) from
> some far corner of Script Kiddie Land.

Java's Classloaders and SecurityManagers illustrate one solution to this
problem.  Being able to set a security policy for various sources of code
solves much of this problem.


~ j. // The Almighty in His infinite wisdom did not see fit to
 // create Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen.
 //  -- Winston Churchill, 1942




Re: .NET

2001-05-03 Thread Dave Storrs



On 3 May 2001, Ilya Martynov wrote:

> >> You can serialize/deserilize object with Storable
> >> 
> >> $foo = new Bar
> >> store_fd $foo, \*SOCKET;
> >> 
> >> and on the other end
> >> 
> >> $foo = retrieve_fd \*SOCKET;
> >> $foo->bar;
> >> 
> >> It will work if you have Bar module on both ends.
> 
> DS> Right, but I want it to work if you don't...
> 
> Then maybe SOAP::Lite? SOAP allows to serialize/deserialize objects
> and make remote call. SOAP::Lite makes it quite transparent.


Errm...wasn't (something like) this discussed just recently and
deemed a massive security hole?  If I download a program, I don't want to
have to inspect every line of source to make that it won't download some
bizarre Trojaned module (or even an object instantiated from that module,
which is worse because it leaves fewer traces by not writing to disk) from
some far corner of Script Kiddie Land.


Dave




Re: .NET

2001-05-03 Thread Dave Storrs



On Wed, 2 May 2001, Dan Brian wrote:

> Another snippet from the .NET whitepaper:
> 
> 
> Everyone believes the Web will evolve, but for that evolution to be
> truly empowering for developers, businesses, and consumers, a radical new
> vision is needed. Microsoft's goal is to provide that vision and the
> technology to make it a reality.
> 
> 
> In other words, evolution in and of itself is not empowering. Without the
> vision[tm], evolution is "deempowering". 


Well, strictly speaking, they only implied that, without their
Vision[tm], evolution would be nonempowering...which is different than
deempowering; things could just remain in a steady state.

It's still a pretty arrogant claim, no matter which way you slice
it.

Dave




Re: .NET

2001-05-03 Thread Ilya Martynov

>> You can serialize/deserilize object with Storable
>> 
>> $foo = new Bar
>> store_fd $foo, \*SOCKET;
>> 
>> and on the other end
>> 
>> $foo = retrieve_fd \*SOCKET;
>> $foo->bar;
>> 
>> It will work if you have Bar module on both ends.

DS> Right, but I want it to work if you don't...

Then maybe SOAP::Lite? SOAP allows to serialize/deserialize objects
and make remote call. SOAP::Lite makes it quite transparent.

server part (which has module Bar):

use SOAP::Transport::HTTP;

SOAP::Transport::HTTP::CGI
-> dispatch_to(qw(Bar))
-> handle;

package Bar;

sub get_bar { new Bar };

sub new { ... };

sub bar { ... };

client part:

use SOAP::Lite +autodispatch =>
uri => 'http://www.host.com/Bar',
proxy => 'http://www.host.com/cgi-bin/server.pl';

   my $foo = Bar->get_bar;
   $foo->bar;

Another solution is module Class::Tom. I've not tried it so check it
yourself: http://search.cpan.org/doc/JDUNCAN/Class-Tom-3.02/Tom.pm.

-- 
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)|
| GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80  E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 |
| AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/)  |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Re: .NET

2001-05-03 Thread Michael G Schwern

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:26:27PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> You are saying that the Clippy wasn't originally and truly annoying? :-)

Annoying enough to spawn vigor!
http://www.red-bean.com/~joelh/vigor/

-- 

Michael G. Schwern   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Kwalitee Is Job One
Q. What are "seven candles", "seven cows", and "seven heads of the beast which
rises from the sea"?  A: Metaphors. They are all symbolic. Which means, they
are not real things.
 --Alex Chiu, Immortality Guy



Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread John Porter


It's certainly a mistake to say "the goals of .NET", as if
they were a monolithic whole.

But the point is, some of the (technical) goals of .NET are
worthy, if not the slightest bit original; and so it should
not be a shame if some of Perl6's goals were collinear
with them.  And I hope that ends this thread.

-- 
John Porter

It's so mysterious, the land of tears.




Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Dan Brian

> "Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You"
> 
> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$320

This is a really good article. The quotes from MS and Sun whitepapers are
living proof that rarely are superior technical means being espoused.
Superior sales are the more likely culprit, especially when a solution is
proposed as new and innovative, when it usually isn't.

Another snippet from the .NET whitepaper:


Everyone believes the Web will evolve, but for that evolution to be
truly empowering for developers, businesses, and consumers, a radical new
vision is needed. Microsoft's goal is to provide that vision and the
technology to make it a reality.


In other words, evolution in and of itself is not empowering. Without the
vision[tm], evolution is "deempowering". 




RE: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread David Grove

> -Original Message-
> From: Jarkko Hietaniemi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:26 PM
> To: David Grove
> Cc: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
> Subject: Re: .NET
> 
> 
> (still waiting
> > for "something original for a change").
> 
> You are saying that the Clippy wasn't originally and truly annoying? :-)

Something worthwhile and interesting?

A benefit to mankind?

ummm, Something that IBM or the Sun corporation would want to steal?





Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 05:22:26PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > > am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of
> > > Perl 6 and the .NET platform.
> > > . . . many things in .NET have been discussed similarly here.
> >
> > That's because .NET attempts to address real-world issues.
> > The goals of .NET are not evil in and of themselves, you know.
> 
> Depends on whether you believe MS marketing. Once you dig through all the
> manure, you end up with some pretty basic concepts -- a new COM, the
> realization that C++ cause problems with mixed languages, and Microsoft's
> desperation to do something remotely interesting for a change (still waiting
> for "something original for a change").

You are saying that the Clippy wasn't originally and truly annoying? :-)

"Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You"

http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$320

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen









Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread David Grove

> > am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of
> > Perl 6 and the .NET platform.
> > . . . many things in .NET have been discussed similarly here.
>
> That's because .NET attempts to address real-world issues.
> The goals of .NET are not evil in and of themselves, you know.

Depends on whether you believe MS marketing. Once you dig through all the
manure, you end up with some pretty basic concepts -- a new COM, the
realization that C++ cause problems with mixed languages, and Microsoft's
desperation to do something remotely interesting for a change (still waiting
for "something original for a change").





Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Dan Sugalski

At 09:30 PM 5/2/2001 +0400, Ilya Martynov wrote:

>DS> At 12:54 PM 5/2/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >> David Grove wrote:
> >> > distributed objects,
> >>
> >> I don't recall discussion of this wrt perl6, frankly.
>
>DS> I've mumbled about it on and off. I'd like to be able to do:
>
>DS>$foo = new Bar;
>DS>print SOCKET serialze($foo);
>
>DS> and on the other end do:
>
>DS>$foo = unserialize();
>DS>$foo->bar();
>
>You can serialize/deserilize object with Storable
>
>$foo = new Bar
>store_fd $foo, \*SOCKET;
>
>and on the other end
>
>$foo = retrieve_fd \*SOCKET;
>$foo->bar;
>
>It will work if you have Bar module on both ends.

Right, but I want it to work if you don't...

Dan

--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski  even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
  teddy bears get drunk




Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Ilya Martynov


DS> At 12:54 PM 5/2/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> David Grove wrote:
>> > distributed objects,
>> 
>> I don't recall discussion of this wrt perl6, frankly.

DS> I've mumbled about it on and off. I'd like to be able to do:

DS>$foo = new Bar;
DS>print SOCKET serialze($foo);

DS> and on the other end do:

DS>$foo = unserialize();
DS>$foo->bar();

You can serialize/deserilize object with Storable

$foo = new Bar
store_fd $foo, \*SOCKET;

and on the other end

$foo = retrieve_fd \*SOCKET;
$foo->bar;

It will work if you have Bar module on both ends.

-- 
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)|
| GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80  E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 |
| AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/)  |
 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread John Porter

Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'd like to be able to do:
>$foo = new Bar;
>print SOCKET serialze($foo);
> and on the other end do:
>$foo = unserialize();
>$foo->bar();

I personally am a big fan of Obliq semantics.
It's something I'd really like to see in perl.

-- 
John Porter

It's so mysterious, the land of tears.




Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Uri Guttman

> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DS> I've mumbled about it on and off. I'd like to be able to do:

  DS>$foo = new Bar;
  DS>print SOCKET serialze($foo);

  DS> and on the other end do:

  DS>$foo = unserialize();
  DS>$foo->bar();

  DS> I don't know that much has been made of it yet.

well, Data::Dumper/eval does this kinda and the new Denter (from the
creator of InLine) does it too and probably better. the biggest problem
is marking the boundaries of multiple serialized thingies on the pipe
and doing the proper i/o and buffering that entails. i have done the
same stuff for stem and it is not difficult but not trivial either. i
think it would be best to support a decent (un)serializer in a standard
module and let another module handle the i/o and buffering stuff. then
you can use them in different ways such as saving the serialized data in
a DB or a file instead of only sending over a socket.

also dealing with sending object thingies over a socket is a perfect
thing to do with an event loop. just had to bring that up again. :)

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture and Stem Development -- http://www.stemsystems.com
Learn Advanced Object Oriented Perl from Damian Conway - Boston, July 10-11
Class and Registration info: http://www.sysarch.com/perl/OOP_class.html



Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Dan Sugalski

At 12:54 PM 5/2/2001 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>David Grove wrote:
> > distributed objects,
>
>I don't recall discussion of this wrt perl6, frankly.

I've mumbled about it on and off. I'd like to be able to do:

   $foo = new Bar;
   print SOCKET serialze($foo);

and on the other end do:

   $foo = unserialize();
   $foo->bar();

I don't know that much has been made of it yet.

Dan

--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski  even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
  teddy bears get drunk




Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread John Porter

David Grove wrote:
> am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of
> Perl 6 and the .NET platform. 
> . . . many things in .NET have been discussed similarly here.

That's because .NET attempts to address real-world issues.
The goals of .NET are not evil in and of themselves, you know.


> distributed objects, 

I don't recall discussion of this wrt perl6, frankly.



> Or are we thinking on a totally separate line that just has a
> few similarities?

Yes.  Do you feel better now?

-- 
John Porter

It's so mysterious, the land of tears.




Re: .NET

2001-05-02 Thread Larry Wall

David Grove writes:
: Larry, et. al.: Is this similarity on purpose?

Yes, but only becase .NET is a VM, not because it's from MicroSoft.

The basic goal is to have a Perl VM that can sit easily on other VMs,
whether .NET's or Java's or our own.  Another example of competing
by cooperating, which Perl has always done.

Larry



.NET

2001-05-02 Thread David Grove

I've been recently looking over the specification for C# and the .NET
platform (and falling for very little of the verbage: almost every line of
the first chapter of book I'm reading contains at least one oxymoron), and
am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of Perl 6 and
the .NET platform. The "one IL fits all languages" type of thing,
distributed objects, and many things in .NET have been discussed similarly
here.

Larry, et. al.: Is this similarity on purpose? If so, we'll be stopping
short of insanity and complete oxymoronity, right? By the sound of it, by
the time we're done with Perl 6, we'll have a major competitor to the .NET
platform itself, even more so than Java is a competitor. Or are we thinking
of a merge? Or are we thinking on a totally separate line that just has a
few similarities?

Everyone else: Comments?



David T. Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]





Re: Net::Ping problem

2000-09-06 Thread Tad McClellan


On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:51:03PM +0200, Willy wrote:

> Does anyone know how can i
[snip]
> How can i do??


You cannot do this in perl6 because perl6 does not yet exist.

Please do not abuse this mailing list with off-topic questions.

Thank you.



-- 
Tad McClellan  SGML consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas



Net::Ping problem

2000-09-06 Thread Willy

Does anyone know how can i use Net::Ping in a CGI without having security problems?? 
It tells me that "icmp ping requires root privileges". But if set the "uid" bit it 
tells me "insecure $ENV". How can i do??

Willy
http://members.xoom.it/willy73