Well, it works slightly different right now:
TCP HTTP XML-RPC | | | | | | Handler- based IO engine (hipe) So... each one lives in its own space. Integrating XML-RPC and HTTP transport can be done, but I'd rather tear it off in a separate release, as the XML-RPC builts on top of Gavin's and Andreas' work. It will be easier to integrate updates then. I also like to concentrate on the modules and so on, in stead of XML-RPC. --Maarten > Maarten Koopmans wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As Rugby is capable of much more than XML-RPC I am thinking of making it > > standalone based on the Rugby IO engine. And moving it out of Rugby. > > > > Is that a good idea? > > I don't understand the model now. - I don't know what Rugby IO engine > stands for exactly. I thought it is easy as following: > > - rugby uses two transport mechanisms - tcp and http (allowing to overcome > proxies/firewalls) > - XML-RPC is protocol wrapped in http layer. There can be planty of them. > The same could be said about http itself (just one of tcp protocols > family). But the truth probably is, that http is enought to be regarded > low-level for Rugby, while XML-RPC lives really in upper layer. > > If you want, make some isolation and modularity in a following way: > > tcp http > ------- ------------ > XML-RPC|SOAP|Other > > That's just my opinion - XML-RPC is in no way different to http protocol, > than is SOAP, or anything else using http as a transport layer ... > > ... but also ... maybe I am just confused :-) > > -pekr- > > > --Maarten > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > > subject, without the quotes. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
