Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport

hey sai.

yeah. this spec doesn't mention that explicitly, but the idea is that it
doesn't REQUIRE services and clients to be on separate hosts.

also, it's not about a specific technology for IPC, but about systems that
want to communicate over the internet. if you wanted to "speak" LLIDL
between two processes on the same host, there would be several options.

a. create a service on 127.0.0.1 and let loopback do it's magic.

b. open a named pipe (or whatever your OS's equivalent is) and speak HTTP
over it.

c. extend this spec with something more appropriate for IPC. maybe just
communicate between services and clients with a binary serialization across
a shared memory interface where request / response semantics are somehow
added in with the client library.

so there's plenty of options, but the important takeaway is that LLIDL is
supposed to define services that are accessed over HTTP over the internet.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
  infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
        http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:47, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:

> David W Levine wrote:
>
>>
>> I've taken a quick read over _
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-vwrap-type-system-00_
>> and unless I'm misreading the draft, it binds exclusively onto http(s) as
>> transport. Given  all the
>> work in hybi and websocket in adjacent working groups in the applications
>> area of IETF, this
>> seems... problematic  Comments?
>>
>> - David
>> ~ Zha
>>
>
> Not to mention client services that are hosted on localhost might be using
> tcp or shared memory for extra speed (ala the SL media plugin).
>
>
> Lawson
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>