Thank you for clarifying these points.  Its very useful to separate 
them.


On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 08:10 PM, David Chizmadia wrote:

> Thus, the most effective approach would be to respecify the
> VatTP/CapTP messages in terms of CDR encapsulations, which is,
> of course, most effectively done by writing them in OMG IDL.
> This would allow the (un)marshalling code to be automatically
> generated using the free open source IDL compilers that exist
> for most major programming languages.

This sounds just right.  Can they be versioned so that an incoming type 
can make an assertion about which version of a type he should be 
interpreted as?


>
> Regarding the operation signatures, we could adopt the
> CORBA Typecode specification as well and require that all
> objects provide a remote Miranda method for acquiring a type
> specification of the complete interface that is exported by
> the object. I understand that this is the approach taken by
> the CapIDL team in order to eliminate the requirement for an
> Interface Repository - and the attendant trust issues that
> it would bring.

I really like what you have said here.  Do you have a link to CapIDL?   
Getting rid of the IR and embedding it in the CapTP protocol sounds 
very agile.

Could you explain exactly what a Miranda method is and how it works.  
It's a MOP method isn't it?  (link?)


>
>> glad to hear it, David.  I think there may now be two
>> advocates  :)
>
> As my daughter would say: Awe-Soooooommme!! :-D
>

:-)


cheers,
rob