Oopsie. s.b. http://www.interlog.com/~resnick/res-baker.html
>I think Ron took the paper off of there.
>But from what I recall reading your paper a few months ago -- correct me
>if I'm wrong -- you weren't calling for, as Roy says, generic API-based
>middleware that allows the user to tweak the messaging paradigm based on
>his own system conditions and personal preferences.
I'm think that's what we were calling for, but I'm not really sure I
completely understand Roy's point. What's the diff between a "network API"
and a "programming API"?
We *were* calling for a unification of all these damned siloed
event/message/RPC mechanisms, just as you said; "[...]if we could unify the
API for the event models at several different layers of the application
That's been our complaint with some of the funkier middleware we've seen.
iBus, for all its really fabulous composable protocol stack stuff, didn't
do anything to attempt to bridge its comms model with the Beans event
model. That's half the work.
And the stuff that does do that, like T-Bone (built on Voyager), doesn't
bother with the composable protocol stacks.
-- Mark Baker. CTO, Beduin Communications Corp Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://www.beduin.com