On Thu Sep 24 07:42:50 2009, Joshua Shinavier wrote:
Marko may or may not agree (and see Peter Neubauer's response a
moment
ago), but the commands we use in Linked Process are not particularly
Ad-Hoc. There are a fixed set of commands with very specific syntax
which does not change from service provider to service provider and
which does not need to be discoverable: participating clients should
know a priori how to interact with other Linked Process clients.
See XEP-0133, for instance - ad-hoc commands are a framework which
includes discovery of what commands are supported, but the
definitions of those commands are largely fixed.
In the case of XEP-0133, a number of commands are defined, and
implementations can signal support for each of them individually.
In the case of the fairly similar room configuration mechanism in
XEP-0045, implementations commonly have both standardized form fields
and their own, implementation-specific ones - this allows "fixed"
client implementation, as well as client implementation which can
perform the whole discovery and produce flexible room configuration
forms. This gives a flexible space for both differentiation and
standardized extension.
So in general, I think there's some use and crossover here, and, most
crucially, XEP-0050 commands do not need to be discovered, and
moreover LOP does not need *not* to be discoverable.
On
the other hand, Jabber-RPC might actually be appropriate for Linked
Process. As far as I can tell, building upon Jabber-RPC might have
relatively little impact on our spec apart from the formatting of
our
IQ stanzas, as we do not have a need for the passing of complex data
types which motivates IO Data. We will look into this possibility
more closely and carefully.
I'd also note that it may be more useful to have the VMs themselves
capable of processing messages, rather than variable bindings alone.
In general - and I realise this is outside my area of expertise by a
long way - I thought that message-passing based parallelization was
generally the in-thing.
> - is the XSF the correct place where to standardize these kind of
> applications?
Well, I hope so! If there's a more appropriate place to discuss our
spec, please let us know.
I can certainly say we know nothing about how VMs work, but I think
we can help you take full advantage of XMPP to get the work done.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
