[e2e] MIB variables vs. ?
craig at aland.bbn.com
Mon Aug 7 13:54:16 PDT 2006
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
>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