[e2e] MIB variables vs. ?

Craig Partridge craig at aland.bbn.com
Mon Aug 7 13:54:16 PDT 2006

Hi Dave:

My view is that objects don't buy much unless you find some way to
create a hierarchy (larger, more abstract objects composed of the little

That is, in the ultimate -- each object matches a dip switch.  And if
that's true, the difference between an message across the network to an
object saying "set yourself to theta" and a message that says "SET 
dip-switch theta" is purely the kind of difference that people used to
use to caricature Smalltalk.


In message <44D79047.6040203 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:

>The standard flexible and elegant alternative to complex data structures 
>(such as MIBs) is a "message-based protocol" that talks to objects that 
>can be migrated across the network by copying the object (code & data 
>together) or accessed across the network by moving the message to the data.
>One can model such a thing after the core Smalltalk VM, or the Self VM, 
>for example.   Unlike data structures, objects are inherently 
>abstraction-building tools.
>Of course you could just put the data structures into ASCII rather than 
>ASN.1, and then have the worst of all worlds by using XML to represent 
>your MIB equivalent.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list