From: "Withers, Robert" <>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:27:33 -0500
Subject: RE: [e-lang] Serialization in Squeak-E (was: MAC calculation)


Do you have a link that I could read up on this?   This sounds interesting,
if it is language neutral.   My current plan is to get to this particular
finish line as quickly as possible, which means Squeak binary serialization,
no suspended or redirected connections, and CapTP.  bada-bing. tyler

I want to get into the event-loop and start implementing some of the special
constructs like dead-man switch and so on.   I wanted protocol negotiation
and encryption to be the same (VatTP), but I am deferring serialization
until the next 'cycle'. tyler

I'll try to respond in more detail this evening before the Thanksgiving
break. tyler 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Close []
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [e-lang] Serialization in Squeak-E (was: MAC calculation)
> On Tuesday 26 November 2002 00:42, Mark Miller wrote:
> > At 06:21 PM 11/26/2002 Tuesday, Rob Withers wrote:
> > >> What's the current state of Squeak support for the Java 
> serialization
> > >> format?
> > >
> > >heh, why would we want to do java when we can do squeak?   
> Everyone is a
> > >refugee here.  ;-)   sorry, there's no support for java 
> serialization.
> >
> >  From earlier correspondence I thought there was, but don't 
> worry about it.
> > I hope to drop Java serialization as well.  There's no way 
> to get past the
> > perception that it's Java-dependent, and no one is pushing 
> it as a language
> > neutral serialization standard.
> >
> > Have you looked at Tyler's Doc and how Tyler's WOMP uses it for
> > serialization?  CapTP is not WOMP (they have different 
> semantics), but I
> > hope to switch CapTP's serialization to something at least 
> close to WOMP's
> > serialization.  Other serialization proposals are certainly 
> welcome, so
> > long as they have both an XML form and an efficient form.  
> (I know the OMG
> > has something here I need to examine.)
> If you do decide to use the Waterken Object Serialization (WOS),
> then I suggest that a good development plan would be to implement
> the WOMP as a prelude to implementing the next generation of
> CapTP (XCapTP?). The WOMP requires very little additional
> implementation work beyond implementing serialization and a
> framework for exporting capabilities. All of this work should be
> reusable in implementing XCapTP.
> If this development plan is followed, than it would result in E,
> Squeak and Waterken servers all being able to securely
> communicate. At this point, the network effects start to become
> impressive. Adding ToonTalk would really start to show off the
> nature of exponential curves.
> Tyler
> _______________________________________________
> e-lang mailing list
e-lang mailing list