Some further thoughts on it...
1. What if OTD is not a string, but rather, a Vobject tree itself? So we
have an OTD for OTDs ("core:type description"), and it's relatively easy
for the VOS libraries to get information from an OTD in a remote server --
there's no parser involved...
If you need to stream an OTD through a non-VOS channel, or save it to a
file, or put it on your website, then you have COD, XOD, SOD, and possibly
other representations available in the future. I imagine you'd use XOD if
you want to provide the information to some application, and SOD as a kind
of bare-bones documentation of the object type for humans.
2.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:55:25 +0800, Lalo Martins wrote:
> However, on dynamic languages, client support can be deduced from an OTD,
> and built on runtime by VOS.
Hrm. With 'operator ->' and maybe sacrificing a black lamb or
two ^W^W^W^W^W^W template metaprogramming, we could do that for C++ too.
Of course, people that have experience with the black lamb sacrificing
thing already do count C++ among "dynamic languages", but I thought it
should be spelt out :-)
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
--
personal: http://www.laranja.org/
technical: http://lalo.revisioncontrol.net/
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
