Subject: SLP for Java objects?

From: "Mike Spreitzer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:01:13 PST

It seems to me that there is an interesting class of potential customers
of SLP who would rather traffic in serialized Java objects than in URLs.
This is not to say that the former can't be done with the latter
(particularly when both are accompanied by extensible attribute sets),
only that it would be interesting to standardize on (1) how it's done on
the wire and (2) convenient access through the Java API.  What do you
think?

Thanks,
Mike

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:29:56 -0800 (PST)

Mike,

We've done some work on using SLP to download code, but nothing specifically on 
downloading objects directly. Our feeling is that being able to download code is 
somewhat more useful than downloading objects, because by downloading the code, 
you could have the code then download objects, or create the objects locally.
If objects are downloaded directly, there is almost a requirement that RMI be
present in the client if the objects are very functional. Less functional
objects might be useful for configuration purposes, but this could be
handled by other data formats that are more portable. A requirement
for RMI precludes small devices, which is why we are trying to avoid it.

If you are interested in writing up an ID, we can talk about it and
see what we can come up with. 

		jak

>X-Authentication-Warning: wicked.neato.org: majordom set sender to 
[email-masked] using -f
>From: "Mike Spreitzer" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "Mike Spreitzer \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: SLP for Java objects?
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>Importance: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:01:13 PST
>

---

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:29:58 -0800

Hi Mike,

Take a look at RFC 2713 'Schema for Representing Java Objects
in an LDAP Directory' (October 1999).  This schema can be
transformed to SLP by following the rules in James Kempf's
<draft-ietf-svrloc-tenmplate-conversion-05.txt> 'Conversion
of LDAP Schemas to and from SLP Templates' (October 1999).

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (consulting architect at Sharp Labs America)
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: SLP for Java objects?

Mike,

We've done some work on using SLP to download code, but nothing specifically
on 
downloading objects directly. Our feeling is that being able to download
code is 
somewhat more useful than downloading objects, because by downloading the
code, 
you could have the code then download objects, or create the objects
locally.
If objects are downloaded directly, there is almost a requirement that RMI
be
present in the client if the objects are very functional. Less functional
objects might be useful for configuration purposes, but this could be
handled by other data formats that are more portable. A requirement
for RMI precludes small devices, which is why we are trying to avoid it.

		jak