Subject: [vwrap] about abstract type systems... llsd and dsd

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 07:25:49 -0700

i think the most recent version of the LLSD draft can be found here:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-vwrap-type-system-00.txt

i proposed a follow-on to LLSD (called DSD.) you can see an outline of
it's features here:

http://blog.meadhbh.org/2010/07/abstract-resource-definitions-vs-llidl.html

but... if no-one in this group plans on using it, i would like to
submit it as an individual submission to the RFC editor for the
purpose of registering it's mime types.

so... when you write your VWRAP implementation, are you going to use
LLSD or DSD. why? why not?

-cheers
-meadhbh

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email-masked]

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:04:26 -0700

> LLSD or DSD. why? why not?

Already implemented LLSD last year and deployed. Wrote Snowglobe.Scalar 
in C# that implents LLSD read/write from buffers/streams and native C# 
usage in familar format as used in the Snowglobe/Snowstorm C++ source. 
The source is in Icesphere. Also already started to move Icesphere and 
my contributions for Snowglobe/Snowstorm to github (where we can fork 
together). Others can find VWRAP, LLSD, and the HTTP server in 
Snowglobe/Snowstorm with what I started as combined queries (what SPDY 
doesn't do) between frames.

I wrote my experience with pro/cons on this list that seemed unanswered. 
Have you looked at the LLIDL in my documentation and notice how the 
combined queries worked?

Noticed your last message here: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00775.html

Further straw-man without implementation, I can't give you any yes or no 
answer on that. There's no specific IETF rule, yet demonstrated flow 
seems what other WGs expect.

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

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:41 -0700

right. but that was before we decided as a group to rewrite the
charter and intro doc.

i guess my question to you would be, are you interested in keeping
LLSD as part of VWRAP?
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email-masked]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Already implemented LLSD last year and deployed. Wrote Snowglobe.Scalar in
> C# that implents LLSD read/write from buffers/streams and native C# usage in
> familar format as used in the Snowglobe/Snowstorm C++ source. The source is
> in Icesphere. Also already started to move Icesphere and my contributions
> for Snowglobe/Snowstorm to github (where we can fork together). Others can
> find VWRAP, LLSD, and the HTTP server in Snowglobe/Snowstorm with what I
> started as combined queries (what SPDY doesn't do) between frames.
>
> Have you looked at the LLIDL in my documentation and notice how the combined
> queries worked?
>
> answer on that. There's no specific IETF rule, yet demonstrated flow seems
> what other WGs expect.
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:13:03 -0700

and... is a DSD style syntax for resources and separation of concerns
worth it to break compatibility with existing LLIDL implementations?

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:39:15 -0700

With how I used LLIDL, yes. That's good enough for generic example of flow.

I would further call that XML context with symbolic representation in 
content is highly abstract and atomical in the same instance. This has 
been demonstrated by dynamic compilers. Why avoid the obvious?

On 05/03/2011 12:11 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Dzonatas Sol<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>    

--