IPC, RPC, Protocol to use between fe/be?
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jun 14 17:40:29 PDT 2001
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:33:07PM -0600, Jesse Tie Ten Quee wrote:
> Does anyone have any suggestions/recommendations on what we can go with?
> preferrably something network-aware, such as the Perl fe/be is now, we
> could have the backend running on another box, while the frontend is on
> another, etc...
> I've been looking at XML-RPC, http://www.xmlrpc.com/, again.
> There's a list of different language implementations,
> http://www.xmlrpc.com/directory/1568/implementations so i think it
> could cover all the languages you guys (may) want to code in.
> XML-RPC is a way to make remote procedure calls (in XML) over HTTP (and
> even HTTPS), much like SOAP is, actually SOAP is based on XML-RPC,
> except it has a bunch of more "features" added to it.
Ok XML again. Simon for one doesn't like the notion of XML and perhaps
there are others who think the same. I don't blame them, part of me is
asking the same questions if there aren't alternatives to XML. It's a
good thing we check that out, in case others ask these questions again,
we at least can say "No, absolutely not. XML is by far the best way to
go, because of this, this and that. Oh and of course becuase of these".
Like my other email said: if you really wanted to go with shell
scripting, some RPC implementation could just dump a script instead of
an XML profile and have it do the same. Though, I do see limitations and
problems because of bash' nature being a shell, not a program that runs,
can run in background, can poll for waiting messages on a socket, etc.
Bash wuld need to start some helper program which in turn needs to be
able to SIG<something> bash to have it to do something alternate (say on
SIGALRM bash goes check for a file /profile-useme and work on that one.
I don't really know how we would deal with bash in such a way, I just
see a worl of complications showing up that we won't have with non-bash
(then still remains the question of XML or some custom ALFS-message
format. Ok, why re-invent the wheel when XML suites already. We'd most
likely make up our own ML version (ALFML? It's all ML, the only thing
that makes an ML HTML, SGML or XML is the DTD behind it).
Enough mumbling, main thing I wouldn't mind learning about are
XML-alternatives, if any. I'd like to be able to answer:
"No, absolutely not. XML is by far the best way to go, because
of this, this and that. Oh and of course becuase of these".
Right now, I couldn't do that without using very weak reasons.
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss