Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] more detailed differences between EPP 02 and 04

[alan <al...@pa...>]

> alan wrote:
>
> >(Speaking of Perl, does anyone have any details on the Perl version of
> >EPP-RTK that's referred to on the sourceforge site?  Is it in the
> >works, or just an idea at this point?)
>
> It's currently in the "idea" stages.  Tucows concentrated on the Java
> version.  Global Name Registry (.name) is the keeper of the C++ version.
>  Both of these are very similar because they were based on the EPP IDLs
> that were created (found in CVS epp-rtk/idl).
>
> We were hoping that developers in the community would be willing to
> contribute and maintain implementations of the IDLs in other languages
> (C, Perl, PHP, etc...).  The idea was to make the RTK interface similar
> no matter which language you developed in.
>
> If you've got a Perl version you're working on and are thinking of
> submitting it, would you mind if either myself, wessorh or vhokstad took
> a look?

We're currently in the tail end of the design phase, so there's not
much to look at right now.  Also, our goals are different than those
of the EPP-RTK project, so our project may not be a good match for
EPP-RTK.

Our goal for registry communication is to create a set of perl modules
which allow us to talk to EPP, RRP, and "other" registries with a
unified OO API.  We hope that eventually all registries will settle on
one standard, so we can rip out everything else; but we aren't
counting on this in the short term.

With that in mind: We didn't intend to create a perfect match for the
EPP IDLs.  Instead, we want to create a general enough interface that
it can be applied to all registry protocols equally (though
implementation may be missing or different for certain registries).

I imagine there are people who would certainly find this useful, but
as I said, I'm not sure it matches with the EPP-RTK's needs.  I'll
take a look at the IDLs and see how close they come to what we had in
mind.

Alan