Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/2011 09:06 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> I gather that you don't understand the type model of LLSD + 
> serializations then.

That is rude for you to assume that, and also consider that I have an 
active implementation. Please, be more serious.

I know you have realized this much as you tried to promote Icesphere in 
the past, yet your political stance changes too often. Such talk doesn't 
belong on this list, you could have simply e-mail off list and asked 
what you don't understand about what I know. (was that you that sent me 
private email? nope, doesn't have "Morgaine" on the sender) On that 
note: I don't appreciate how you and others have treated me as the 
escapegoat! What do you expect? To send the inventor of XYZ language to 
school to certify that he knows XYZ language?


>
> The ADT defines the elementary data types and composite resource 
> types.  The serializations then implement both of these for transport 
> on-the-wire.  There is nothing that one specific serialization like 
> XML can do to to extend the elementary data types provided by the ADT.

LLSD was specifically stated in source as the high-level like data types 
useful at low-level languages: low-level scalar data. Go ahead and 
assume LLSD means... you know... what the "reverse engineers" called it. 
Now that Mono has LLVM, and Attachment laid of Mono-employees, we can 
only assume they didn't want to look at the source of the LL version. 
Maybe its better hands now, and less need to re-standardize and 
re-implement the CIL libraries that Microsoft already distributes.

It's helpful to read the source, yet due to much anxiety-induced fears 
of that alone your argument is endless and redundant to reinvent 
generics when that is already done.


>
> Your answers simply don't address the non-extensibility and 
> non-flexibility of elementary types.  The XML tail cannot wag the ADT 
> dog.  The relationship is the other way around, it's the ADT that 
> defines the elementary types, which are transported in all serializations.

I have, you just avoid the demonstrated flow and source for some reason. 
ADTs still have to stream in ordinary ways to flow.


>
> You keep referring to the flexibility of XML, but that is irrelevant 
> to the ADT.


You obviously want to avoid XML, despite the very implementation is 
based on plain text headers and XML data. I'm not even gonna ask why you 
avoid this over and over. Can you answer the question about region-agent 
transistion and if SLTP is viable, or do you want to continue to send 
any abstract data over clear text?


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant