On 21/08/07, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Watching the debate, I think you guys are actually quite close to each > other.
Yes, as I say, we are to some extent talking at cross purposes. I'm primarily coming from the point of view of modularizing, and allowing multiple implementations of a common set of interfaces. I think Rajith is primarily looking at things from the point of view of offering a client API. I'm actually thinking of an API that is for both the client and the broker, to call into a shared comm layer. > L1 - Transport > L2 - Session > L3 - Execution > L4 - Model This is something for me to think about, because I have not tried to take this into account. My idea to expose the whole protocol, is completely flat wrt this layering. The reason I thought every method has to be exposed, is so that the client can be plugged direct into the broker in-vm or into a comm layer for going over the network. Sounds like I need to expose layers 2-4 in full, in order to do this. Is it the case that every method belongs to one of these layers? In which case, will the layer numbers be put into the 0-10 xml? Rupert
