Subject:
|
Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:09:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
742 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Wayne Gramlich writes:
> > No matter what stategy is taken, there needs to be a documentation
> > effort to describe what features of LPub are going to be provided
> > for extensibility.
>
> Agreed. It does seem a bit silly to spend all this time discussing
> languages and protocols when we don't even know what LPUB features
> will be accessed by said languages and protocols.
I've tried to outline some of the interface on
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/~1527.
I think that both topics are relevent now. The protocol is easier to lock
down than the extensibility, because that will be forever growing and changing.
>
> > With regards to XML-RPC, it appears to require a connection set up
> > and tear down for each command; hence, I doubt it is a very good
> > match for LPub extensibility.
>
> I'm not sure how you can have those doubts when we don't even know
> what sort of features we're talking about. The connection latency
> is tiny compared to a human being moving the mouse and clicking on
> a button. It's nothing compared to a POV render.
>
> > It is hard to get much simpler than send a command line followed
> > by a new-line character and get a response back followed by another
> > new line character. Yes, you have to document the command line
> > format and response line format, but you have to provide documenation
> > anyhow.
>
> True. And I have to admit, it's nice to be able to telnet into a
> server and type the commands by hand. But then you also have to
> worry about error handling, parsing in different languages, and now
> with everything connected to the internet, security is a big issue.
> With XML-RPC you have many other people already doing the code to
> handle that for you. Plus it's a thin enough layer that you can
> still type the commands by hand if you want to.
>
> Anyhow, it's just something to consider, so I thought I'd toss the
> idea out there. As you said, the most important thing at this point
> is to document the extensible features, and that's up to Kevin.
Is anyone out there interested in helping develop the documentation of the
facilities and eventually the protocol?
I'm really grateful for all the brainstorming about where to take LPub in
the future, but the engineering 80/20 rule is rearing its ugly head.
It takes 20% of the work to get 80% of the value (I think I've done this
part), and the remaining 80% of the work to get the last 20% of the value.
It looks like it is time to open source LPub and get some help. Lets not
forget that my first love in LEGO is building. Documenting is a secondary
issue :^)
At this rate, I'll never get back to LSynth :^)
>
> Don
Kevin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
| (...) Yeah, I noticed the tcl/tk version of the LSynth GUI didn't get too many comments. (URL) you had any thoughts on how to make the LPub GUI portable? It's a bit heftier than the LSynth GUI, but it's probably doable in tcl/tk. Don (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Embedded language support in LPub
|
| (...) Agreed. It does seem a bit silly to spend all this time discussing languages and protocols when we don't even know what LPUB features will be accessed by said languages and protocols. (...) I'm not sure how you can have those doubts when we (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
