Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport

"Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity@lindenlab.com> Mon, 15 February 2010 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E753A7A56 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:11:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ruHznoQ3qe-x for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:11:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f215.google.com (mail-fx0-f215.google.com [209.85.220.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF393A7A4D for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so6362857fxm.28 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:13:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.239.173.67 with SMTP id d3mr612364hbf.110.1266271987292; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:13:07 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c1002151410q6b2b50a0ic8a527217fd4104b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF9C5B1597.47D03774-ON852576CB.006382E5-852576CB.006409C6@us.ibm.com> <4B79B2C9.8020800@cox.net> <3a880e2c1002151410q6b2b50a0ic8a527217fd4104b@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:12:47 -0800
Message-ID: <3a880e2c1002151412y779cb377xb83f8cd0bab14fbb@mail.gmail.com>
To: lenglish5@cox.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485f1e966fdde13047faaeb42"
Cc: ogpx <ogpx@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:11:48 -0000

also... we've all been cc:'ing our messages to ogpx-bounces@ietf.org, which
is probably not what we want to do.

-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 14:10, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <
infinity@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>