SAMP draft document introduction
aa at astro.ex.ac.uk
Wed Apr 30 09:22:04 PDT 2008
Mark Taylor wrote:
> Alasdair Allan wrote:
>> The immediate problem I have with the document is that I'm a
>> little unsure how the mtype mapping from what is outlined in
>> section 5 to XML-RPC method names works in practice?
> MTypes do not map to XML-RPC method names, they map to (parts of)
> XML-RPC method arguments, specifically the value of the "mtype" key
> in the "message" map-type argument.
Sorry, didn't really say what I meant.
> The pseudo-code excerpt from sec 4.4...shows how it works. The
> explanation for why this is what you do is in sec 3.8.
Going back over those sections a couple of times makes it a bit
clearer and I think I know what's going on now. I'm a bit concerned
about adding asynchronous calls into the protocol, but from previous
discussions I know I'm going to loose if I advocate for synchronous
only, so I'm not going to try that again... I'm pretty happy I think.
> ... I think it would be a good idea if I added an example in sec
> 3.8 of an encoded message, to make it clearer what I'm going on
> about there.
I think that might be helpful.
>> Based on the specification I'll try and put together a
>> demonstration Perl SAMP hub (and a couple of simple clients) in
>> time for the May meeting. It'll be good to have a few prototypes
>> kicking around.
> that would be great - it would certainly go a long way towards
> testing whether there are things we've forgotten to think about or
> to write down. Since this is all still under discussion you might
> need to revise the implementations in accordance with decisions yet
> to be made, but I'm sure you can cope with that. I'm plannning to
> write a Java hub reasonably soon assuming we reach agreement, but
> most likely not before Trieste.
Okay, I'll try ad put something together by Trieste then...
More information about the apps-samp