Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport

"Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com> Mon, 15 February 2010 22:14 UTC

From: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
To: "Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:16:11 -0700
Thread-Topic: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport
Thread-Index: AcqujIOlUEGEEAdASxyh7n+jfDmS/w==
Message-ID: <24D8713D-51F2-4268-B82B-A8862D02F61C@intel.com>
References: <OF9C5B1597.47D03774-ON852576CB.006382E5-852576CB.006409C6@us.ibm.com><4B79B2C9.8020800@cox.net> <3a880e2c1002151410q6b2b50a0ic8a527217fd4104b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c1002151410q6b2b50a0ic8a527217fd4104b@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "lenglish5@cox.net" <lenglish5@cox.net>, "ogpx-bounces@ietf.org" <ogpx-bounces@ietf.org>, ogpx <ogpx@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport
Precedence: list

Since bi-directional HTTP has finally gone the way of the dinosaur and been replaced by WebSockets, it seems out of place to talk about LLSD as being exclusively for HTTP. Is there a reason the message format is necessarily bound to the transport mechanism, or can we drop the HTTP references?

John

On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:10 PM, "Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity@lindenlab.com<mailto: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> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:47, Lawson English <<mailto:lenglish5@cox.net>lenglish5@cox.net<mailto: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_>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
<mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>ogpx@ietf.org<mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx

[ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport David W Levine
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Lawson English
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Hurliman, John
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Morgaine
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Joshua Bell
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Morgaine
Re: [ogpx] LLIDL, LLSD, Transport Hurliman, John