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 vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d