On 21 March 2011 00:18, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > In any case, my objective with nREPL was to get something working well that > had what I thought were the right semantics for the use cases I was concerned > with (i.e. point-to-point Clojure tooling backends). Lifting those semantics > onto other transports in the future shouldn't be difficult (I think Rich was > pretty unhappy with the protocol as well -- IIRC, he would have preferred > using STOMP directly, but it's important to some users of nREPL that external > dependencies be minimal/nonexistent, and a Clojure STOMP broker has yet to > come along).
FWIW, my personal preference would be construct a protocol for passing around Clojure data-structures securely over a socket, and then build your REPL protocol on top of that. For instance, you could print your data structure to a string, then encode it as a netstring (http://cr.yp.to/proto/netstrings.txt): "12:{:foo \"bar\"}," => {:foo "bar"} I'm not sure we need a protocol like STOMP, because there doesn't seem to be much streaming involved in a REPL. - James -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
