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

[Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>]

It doesn't block "evolution of transported elementary types", as the 
transport layer is underneath the application layer. As demonstrated 
(and proven) with flow in XML, we can easily keep the high-level types 
in the higher layer. LLSD is merely the high-level types, not overall 
primitives.

On 05/04/2011 08:49 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> That's a far clearer question than you asked initially, and so its 
> easier to give a specific answer.� (Indeed, I already did before, in 
> the second part of my response.)
>
> While I don't know exactly what DSD is (an RFC would be excellent!), 
> if it's just LLSD with another name then the type system of its 
> underlying ADT is not extensible, and therefore it won't support new 
> types going forward into the future.� From my perspective, a 
> non-extensible type system is *not sufficient* for VWRAP because it 
> blocks the evolution of transported elementary types.
>
> And LLSD is actually worse than merely non-extensible, because it 
> isn't flexible either, especially in providing just a single integer 
> type.� That's not enough.
>
> We need to design for tomorrow, not just for today.
>
>
> Morgaine.

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