RE: [Embedlets-developer] Re: .NET, "dead" XML configs, Schemas/DTDs, and catchups....

[James C. <ca...@vi...>]

>But seriously, why do you think I've been stressing the
>availability of a "connector embedlet"

Thats all I really mean't just to be sure that it is 'visible' in the right
place from the beginning.

>As for creating C# implementations <snip>

I wasn't suggesting we do this in C# only that .NET is going to linger and
cross pollinate with Java so we should be ready for it.

James Caska
http://www.muvium.com
'Java Bred for Embedded'




> -----Original Message-----
> From: emb...@li...
> [mailto:emb...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Andrzej Jan Taramina
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:42 AM
> To: emb...@li...
> Subject: [Embedlets-developer] Re: .NET, "dead" XML configs,
> Schemas/DTDs, and catchups....
>
>
> James is concerned:
>
> > The point is that we certainly should ensure our embedlet
> specification is
> > able to work with .NET at some point along the chain and we
> should design
> > for it if possible or is this simply an outrageous thing to say
> to a bunch
> > of java die hards!
>
> .NET?  What's that?  Hasn't M$ dropped the .NET moniker?  Lord knows what
> they will call it next...hey, that might be it:  from: OLE to COM
> to COM+ to
> DCOM to .NET to .NEXT?  ;-)
>
> But seriously, why do you think I've been stressing the availability of a
> "connector embedlet" that will use XML/SOAP to communicate to back end
> systems using Web Services?  That approach means we'll be able to
> integrate
> embedlets running inside the Outpost container to J2EE, .NET and
> any other
> Web Services-enabled back end system....targetting the maximum amount of
> integration capability.
>
> As for creating C# implementations,  I see little value to that
> in the short term
> (aJile/Systronix are not likely to support C# on their platforms
> too soon).  Let's
> get a Java version running first.  Then a Java <--> C#  bytecode
> translator
> might be an easy way to accomplish this, if there is a demand.
> Or just re-
> implement Outpost as Outpost# (if someone cares to do such).
>
> Brill then comments:
>
> > IMO, this is the key to this system... setting it up "dead"
> would be fairly
> > easy to do and doesn't bring any unique aspect.... which would
> put up my "So
> > What?" radar.
>
> Almost every other container system out there does it this
> way.....XML config
> files rather than serialized instances.  It's considered a "best
> practice" for a
> reason.  Just because it's not unique and "gee whiz" does not mean we
> shouldn't use it.  The goal of Outpost is very practical in
> nature.....so "gee
> whiz" stuff should be left behind, unless it clearly advances the
> goals.  When
> building a Container/Component system, there are many things that have to
> be specified that really don't belong inside the component
> instance object (and
> hence it's serialized form).
>
> Jac doesn't like schemas:
>
> > Having to know XML is not too much of a problem. Most people
> are able to
> > learn XML. The problem with XML is the DTD, how many XML
> documents are you
> > working on and how many DTD do you need to know to be able to create
> > correct XML documents?
>
> You don't need a schema to use XML.  Validation for configuration
> files is not
> all that valuable, and even if it will add some limited value,
> the validation and
> schemas can be added after the fact quite easily, inferring these
> from the XML
> tags themselves.  The config file structure should be quite
> intuitive....probably
> modeled on servlet descriptors to some degree, just for
> familiarity reasons.
>
> > Having even a simple application available to create a valid
> configuration
> > is very valuable IMHO. A wiring tool would be great!
>
> Yup....that would be a real nice to have for sure!
>
> Ted plays catchup:
>
> > t took me 5 solid hours to read through and absorb all the
> traffic that you
> > guys generated (sheesh, was it a full moon or something!?) and
> there were a
> > significant number of absolutely critical ideas that were submitted.
>
> Nope...been meaning to post some stuff and finally got around to
> it.  Will be
> posting some Container design ideas very shortly too....so we can
> start settling
> that down a bit to the point where I can start slinging some initial code.
>
> Andrzej Jan Taramina
> Chaeron Corporation: Enterprise System Solutions
> http://www.chaeron.com
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Embedlets-developer mailing list
> Emb...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/embedlets-developer
>
>