On Jan 18, 2010, at 19:56 , Derrell Lipman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:21, Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Few words on our new Java-RPC implementation :
> We are in the process of delivering a qooxdoo contrib for a new Java-RPC.
> The contrib name is not set.
> Should it be "Java RPC 2" ?
>
> We're going to get multiple implementations of JSON-RPC in each language.
This could be cool for the qooxdoo community.
Initially, I clearly explain our intent to provide a replacement of current
Java-RPC witch is outdated on a Java point of view.
The danger is the proliferation of very similar implementation, that just cut
community force instead of focusing it.
On the other hand, lots of flowers blossoming in the qooxdoo garden could be
cool if all species are clearly identify, just not to mix everything that could
lost visitors.
> We really ought to have a standardized hierarchy that allows for this.
Yes.
[CUT]
> I, too, have a new Java RPC implementation which is not yet committed to the
> contrib repository.
> Mine is intended to be very, very simple
Could you please elaborate ?
All the benefit I mentioned in my previous email doesn't mean it is complex to
use.
Our implementation is very simple to use, it will be difficult to be simpler :
- nothing special to do in the classes to serialized/deserialize. Using
transient keyword is just plain old Java standard for serialization.
Also see other email to understand different way to express (compile-time or
run-time) you want/don't want some attribute in the serialization.
- here is a Controller example :
import java.rmi.Remote;
import java.rmi.RemoteException;
public class CustomerController implements Remote {
public Customer[] methodTemplate(/*, HERE THE PARAM */) throws
RemoteException {}
}
You see ? Nothing outside standard JDK to import, only RMI packages.
> (I went the opposite direction you did)
What do you mean by "the opposite direction" ?
If yours is based on JavaBean model (ours is based on attributes witch look
like simpler), then I thing the name of our two implementations should use that
difference in the name to help clarifying.
Javabean RPC or Bean RPC for yours
POJO RPC or Simple Java Class RPCfor ours.
I'm not sure POJO is a known acronym so that name could deserve our
implementation.
POJO stand for Plain Old Java Object.
What do you think ?------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
