Re: Writing machine code from LISP

On 2006-04-23, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was refering not to a RFC, but to a library API.


ok


To prove that an API works, you just need one library and one client
program (checking that the client program only use the library thru
the API, without any out-of-band communication).


true



How would you make interact two different implementations of a
library? What would that prove?


RFC's do not discus implamentations but how implamentations talk to
each other using a defined protocol, ntp,smtp,nntp ...
Perhaps we are talking about different things. And it wont be the
first thing I got wrong here.


If I define an API to get the factorial of an integer (note that there
is ext:! in clisp, perhaps something else in another implementation,
hence everybody is constantly rewritting their own half backed
factorial or fact function).

So I would define:


[ valid argument that I needed to snip to get my nntp server
to accept my post]

where combination uses the factorial API without messing with the
internals, and returns the right number of combinations for its
arguments, then you'll know that the API works.


The reason for two complete and seperate implamentations is to debug the RFC.
For example lets say you and I both build a http 1.0 client and server as part
of the acceptance testing of the http protocol, back in the day, your client
works with your server and my client works with my server and we both believe
we have accuratly implamented the rfc. Now when I try my client against your
server it does not work and the same for your client against my server. Now
either one or both of us read the rfc wrong or the rfc itself is too vauge,
allowing for different _valid_ interptations of the text, and it needs to be
fixed. That is what I ment by needing two seperate systems to check how well
the rfc promotes interoperbillity among different client and servers.

marc

--
ms4720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Avoiding a "Bogus HELO" error
    ... Keep in mind that RFC 2821 deals with MSAs and MTAs. ... When I send a message using Comcast's SMTP server, ... > filters would trigger on the hostname of the sending client. ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook.general)
  • Re: Avoiding a "Bogus HELO" error
    ... Keep in mind that RFC 2821 deals with MSAs and MTAs. ... When I send a message using Comcast's SMTP server, ... > filters would trigger on the hostname of the sending client. ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook)
  • Re: Law Of Demeter revisited
    ... > an API. ... Why shouldn't Client simply send the changeState ... I knows that server accepts the changeState ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: TN3270 Question
    ... I took a look at RFC 2355, ... The server should not send anything to the host ... application on behalf of the client. ...
    (bit.listserv.ibm-main)
  • Re: Debug privileges
    ... only real server component is the database such as SQL Server or DB2. ... API however supports virtually everything that software using the API wants ... The accounting software is being used by ... If the client software has full access to tell the server what to do ...
    (microsoft.public.platformsdk.security)