Extism: Make all software programmable with WebAssembly
If I understand it correctly, it is as overlap with the &quot;sidecar&quot; design-pattern, correct? (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;azure&#x2F;architecture&#x2F;patterns&#x2F;sidecar" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;learn.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;azure&#x2F;architecture&#x2F;pattern...</a>)<p>If so, then super interesting product!  Have actually had a <i>somewhat</i> similar idea myself for a product that allows you to create &quot;subsystems&quot; that are isolated from one another, allowing you great freedom in how the subsystems are deployed. They could be deployed all on the same machine, or, if greater scalability is needed, a subsystem (or plugin) could be moved to its own machine, or even scaled up to run multiple instances.<p>Have only read through the simple code example on your website, but also, it would be great if there was a standard for calling and receiving requests through FFI&#x27;s. Because this would give it the utmost flexibility on where the plugins can be deployed to. To me, this means both the <i>actual</i> mechanism for the call (REST over HTTP, graphQL...) and in the plugin and host themselves, with the syntax of the call. So for the syntax, it would also be great if this looked more like a regular method call instead of having to wrap parameters in an object:<p><pre><code>  hostWrapper.somemethod(param1, param2) or
  hostWrapper.call(&quot;somemethod&quot;, param1, param2)

</code></pre>
(Although, not sure how difficult this is to do, given all the different method call syntaxes of the different languages).<p>And, am glad that you and your company is really trying to make this happen, it&#x27;s a great idea! Looking forward to giving it a try!