>> doors in and of themselves can't be bad simply because of that.  the
>> traditional rpc mechanism was udp, with the "redundancy" needed
>> supplied by that the rpc mechanism.  would you call udp bad simply
>> because it was used to make something you don't like?
>
>No, that's not the point.  However given that I've more or less rejected
>by now the very notion of RPC in the first place I'm not likely to be
>swayed by a new implementation of it, no matter how much easier it is to
>use than Sun's "popular" incarnation of RPC.

no, it *is* the point, and you're missing mine.  doors are not a
replacement for rpc, they're a replacement for the udp piece of rpc.
doors cannot be bad *solely* because they can be used to implement
rpc, because if that was so, udp would also have to be bad, and it's
not.

ps - mail.weird.com is broken.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."