[e2e] Lost Layer?
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat Jan 11 06:40:55 PST 2014
agree - in fact, the model of layers is obsolete in terms of s/w APIs for a
variety of reasons - when we did Haggle, we had a set of cooperating agents
to build up a protocol as needed - others (handley's protocol heaps, for
example) have looked at this - also, in terms of interfaces, one can use deep
reflection to modify internals of a protocol through an API, rather than
being restricted to modifying things above a restricted service interface...
so any OO trained programmer ought to be fine with that idea..
finally, a lot of cooler things can be done with typesafe systems in terms of
puttign new code into a protocol "stack" (or heap) safely with contracts
and/or proof carrying code - or else just build a whole lot of compeltely
different comms systems as needed out of lots of micro-protocol
for this approach for cloud)
so yes, we have much better tools for extensibility nowadays...and could go a
lot further in future proofing things
In missive <20140111.143902.71090496.sthaug at nethelp.no>, sthaug at nethelp.no typed:
>>> > you need a sublayer convergence (as per day's work) but also the
>>> > socket layer needs revising badly to allow for a wider set of
>>> > transport service semantics than came out of the fast
>>> > hack that bbn and berkeley did
>>> Shouldn't we agree upon a model and then upon offered services and APIs
>>Maybe not, because you can never foresee all of the services and APIs
>>you might need in the future. You need an extensible model.
>>Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
More information about the end2end-interest