> > > I think bridge must remain to be a set of interfaces because > > alternative > > > implementations are imaginable. (RMMCI, core2) > > > > Is this true? > > I thought that RMMCI was a wrapper around the bridge. The generated > > Yes, but RMMCI also implements bridge, IRC.
I wasn't thinking clearly, It has to if it is a stub for the bridge to the outside world. It has to pretend that it is a local object. > > Core2, will that be the replacement for the core in the architecture > > image? > > I hope so. > > > (http://www.mmbase.org/download/builds/2003-08-28/mmdocs/general/media/a > > rchitecture.png) > > That is below the security right and the bridge is above it. Core2 > > shouldn't affect the bridge api then. Only the calls from the bridge to > > the core. > > Yes, I imagine core2 as a kind of securityless bridge. It's only an idea.. The bridge should just be an entry point to the mmbase engine. The outside world has to go through the bridge to interact with the engine. The bridge will protect the engine for malicious use. The engine should be responsible of managing the objects, builders, modules and other cool stuff. The interfaces of the bridge do not cover all the functionality and they should not. At least that is how I see it. Nico Klasens ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Genius vs stupidity; genius has its limits
