Ada Foundation Classes

Ada Foundation Classes

[Chad Bremmon]

The WAdaS conference is over. . .  I can try to get 
back to work now. . .  or play as it may be. 

I would like to get started on some work with 
Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you 
have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't 
been updated for a while.  

Here is what I request from the Ada community.

1.  What do you need from foundation classes.  
Consider the microsoft foundation classes.  But, 
consider that they need to be portable.  Consider 
the Java API's.  What if they were implemented on 
every platform.  Consider "automatic" object 
distribution.  Consider having CORBA written into 
the language.  With a specification in the front 
that would allow the implementation to change over 
time.  

What I'm asking is:  If you were given Ada 
foundation classes today, what would your 
requirements be?  Please be as specific as 
possible.  Please reply to bremmon@acm.org.

2.  Who wants to help?  I know I've had volunteers 
in the past.  Please notify me again if you 
volunteered.  

3.  Is it worthy of a working group?  This is a 
question for SIGada.  Similar to the annexes, we 
could separate the classes as it made sense. 

Please let me know,
Chad (bremmon@acm.org)

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[William W Pritchett]

Chad Bremmon (chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil) wrote:

[snip]

: 1.  What do you need from foundation classes.  
: Consider the microsoft foundation classes.  But, 
: consider that they need to be portable.  Consider 
: the Java API's.  What if they were implemented on 
: every platform.  Consider "automatic" object 
: distribution.  Consider having CORBA written into 
: the language.  With a specification in the front 
: that would allow the implementation to change over 
: time.  

I personally wouldn't mind seeing the java API implemented in Ada.  
I would love to be able to have compiled versions of my AppletMagic apps. I'm 
finding the interpreted apps are not as fast as I'd like them to be.

Bill Pritchett
DCS Corporation

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dale Pontius]

In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
        Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
>
>I would like to get started on some work with
>Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you
>have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't
>been updated for a while.
>
The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...

You say 'like MFC, but portable', and obviously C++ instead
of Ada is implied. Things like CORBA (more portable than COM)
take you a bit further from MFC.

I would suggest that you at least glance at some other class
libraries, as well. The first two that come to mind are Fresco
and OpenClass (IBM), but there are others as well. There are
different styles involved. Before going too far on such a
project I'd look at some of the different styles (not products)
and see just which one maps most gracefully into Ada.

I don't mean to sound like an IBM add, but I've heard from
people who have used MFC and moved to OpenClass that they like
the OpenClass style better. To be fair, I've also heard from
people saying OpenClass was slow and buggy. To continue fairness,
I've heard the same said of MFC, and that Fresco is a resource
hog.

Please, just look, and don't start blindly.

Oh yeah, to answer question 1.5...
The Ada library does a lot of basics, so let's concentrate on
what is missing:
  GUI
  Networking
  Corba (How about Ada OpenDoc wrappers?)
I'm sure there's more, these shout out to me.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Chad Bremmon]

Kenneth Mays wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting topic since I have been looking into MFC 4.x
> for quite some time. Consider interfacing Ada compilers with the MFC
> library instead of reinventing the wheel.
> 
> Then again, if you find a few college grads with a lot of spare time
> on their hands then by all means - knock yourself out!!!!! Any
> improvements in Ada for PC programming is a welcomed treat in my
> book! :oD
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> KenIf we were only concerned with making applications 
work on the Microsoft platform, a binding to the 
currently existing MFCs would be the answer.  When 
I do that, however, I blow portability out of the 
water.  If we can get non OS specific at some 
level.  It may require 2 api's:  One for the 
standard interface and one beneath the standard 
interface for the non-standard OS interface. So 
what I'm saying is we're not re-inventing the 
wheel, just making it turn. . .in a standard way.

Chad

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dave Wood]

Dale Pontius wrote:
> 
> In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
>         Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
> >
> >I would like to get started on some work with
> >Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you
> >have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't
> >been updated for a while.
> >
> The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
> Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...

I agree that a different name would be more
appropriate.  We are providing a binding to
MFC as part of the ObjectAda for Windows
product line, under the name Ada Foundation
Classes.  The notion of "Foundation Classes"
is pretty tightly tied to Windows and MFC in 
particular, and especially bring to mind C++.

You need something more generic, like 
Canonical Ada Classes (CAC).

-- Dave Wood
-- ObjectAda for Windows:  http://www.thomsoft.com

"We do Ada...
 We do Java...
 We import C code...
 But why botha?"

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Chad Bremmon]

Dave Wood wrote:
> 
> Dale Pontius wrote:
> >
> > In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
> >         Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
> > >
> > >I would like to get started on some work with
> > >Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you
> > >have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't
> > >been updated for a while.
> > >
> > The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
> > Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...
> 
> I agree that a different name would be more
> appropriate.  We are providing a binding to
> MFC as part of the ObjectAda for Windows
> product line, under the name Ada Foundation
> Classes.  The notion of "Foundation Classes"
> is pretty tightly tied to Windows and MFC in
> particular, and especially bring to mind C++.
> 
> You need something more generic, like
> Canonical Ada Classes (CAC).

I highly doubt that "Foundation Classes" is a trademark of Microsoft.  Object Oriented also brings 
to mind C++ for most people.  That doesn't mean Ada can't have foundation classes.  Nor does it mean 
they have to match Microsoft's.  I might suggest that your name should be something more specific 
like "Microsoft Foundation Classes for Ada."

> 
> -- Dave Wood
> -- ObjectAda for Windows:  http://www.thomsoft.com
> 
> "We do Ada...
>  We do Java...
>  We import C code...
>  But why botha?"

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[John Walker]

In article <31FF7844.2C4E@comm.hq.af.mil>, Chad Bremmon
<chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes
>KenIf we were only concerned with making applications 
>work on the Microsoft platform, a binding to the 
>currently existing MFCs would be the answer.  When 
>I do that, however, I blow portability out of the 
>water.  If we can get non OS specific at some 
>level.  It may require 2 api's:  One for the 
>standard interface and one beneath the standard 
>interface for the non-standard OS interface. So 
>what I'm saying is we're not re-inventing the 
>wheel, just making it turn. . .in a standard way.
>
I don't think you should consider the MFCs as a single lump.  I would
divide them into two, and possibly three, classifications.

First there are classes which support data structures such as lists and
dynamic arrays.  These do not sit comfortably with Ada because of the
different semantics for pointers and arrays and because some of these
classes are offered as templates.  However a standard approach to the
support of similar structures in Ada would be useful with an Ada
interface and a portable Ada implementation.

Second there are the classes which encapsulate the Windows API.  Both
the MFC interface and its implementation seem to be a moving target.  I
am building a technology to generate and maintain an Ada binding to MFC.
I think this is the only viable way at present to use these classes in
Ada.  I don't know how feasible it would be to map the MFC interface to
a different OS API.  However it didn't take me long to decide that re-
implementing the MFC classes for Windows in Ada would be a maintenance
nightmare and that a binding offered the only viable solution.

Thirdly there are a few classes like CObject and CArchive which might be
useful in Ada.  An Ada solution could adopt an Ada interface which is
compatible with MFC so that MFC would provide the implementation for the
Microsoft platform.  Alternatively the same functionality could be
provided by a different Ada interface and implementation as for the data
structures.
-- 
John Walker
Email: john@jswalker.demon.co.uk
Tel:   +44(1734)403749

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Mitch Gart]

: Dale Pontius wrote:
: > 
: > In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
: >         Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
: > The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
: > Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...

: I agree that a different name would be more
: appropriate.  We are providing a binding to
: MFC as part of the ObjectAda for Windows
: product line, under the name Ada Foundation
: Classes.  The notion of "Foundation Classes"
: is pretty tightly tied to Windows and MFC in 
: particular, and especially bring to mind C++.

Netscape doesn't seem to mind copying a name, they have recently
announced Netscape Internet Foundation Classes , see
http://home.netscape.com/comprod/one/white_paper.html

- Mitch Gart

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dave Wood]

Chad Bremmon wrote:
> 
> Dave Wood wrote:
> >
> > Dale Pontius wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
> > >         Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
> > > >
> > > >I would like to get started on some work with
> > > >Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you
> > > >have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't
> > > >been updated for a while.
> > > >
> > > The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
> > > Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...
> >
> > I agree that a different name would be more
> > appropriate.  We are providing a binding to
> > MFC as part of the ObjectAda for Windows
> > product line, under the name Ada Foundation
> > Classes.  The notion of "Foundation Classes"
> > is pretty tightly tied to Windows and MFC in
> > particular, and especially bring to mind C++.
> >
> > You need something more generic, like
> > Canonical Ada Classes (CAC).
> 
> I highly doubt that "Foundation Classes" is a trademark of Microsoft.  

I don't recall saying or implying anything about a
trademark.  I merely suggest that you invite confusion
by using it, and I stand by my opinion.  


-- Dave Wood
-- ObjectAda for Windows:  http://www.thomsoft.com

 "We do Ada...
  We do Java...
  We import C code...
  But why botha?"

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Tom Moran]

Where is info re OpenClass?  I looked under Yahoo and Lycos without
luck.

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dale Pontius]

In article <qBA2lAAhOwByEw9h@jswalker.demon.co.uk>,
        John Walker <john@jswalker.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>I don't think you should consider the MFCs as a single lump.  I would
>divide them into two, and possibly three, classifications.
>
People are still talking in the 'MFC for Ada' scheme, here. Perhaps
this is the best way, I don't at the moment know.

However, there are other C++ class libraries than MFC out there.
There are other 'world views' besides MFC to consider. I have
heard people who have used both say IBM's OpenClass has a much
better 'model' than MFC. There are several free class libraries
available, probably with yet different models. I'm not endorsing
any one of these, here.

Simply put...

At the moment, MFC is available for Windows and Mac. Simply
putting an Ada wrapper around it excludes Unices, OS/2, etc.

The way Ada handles data structures, tagged types, etc may
allow making a wrapper around MFC, but that may not be the
best 'Ada way' to approach the problem.

I won't disparage MFC, I don't know enough to know whether
I should or not. I will simply say that before embarking on
a 'Foundation', a little more 'surveying' is called for.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dale Pontius]

In article <320A9398.1886@bix.com>,
        Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com> writes:
>Where is info re OpenClass?  I looked under Yahoo and Lycos without
>luck.

It is sold by IBM with the Visual Age products. It's available for
OS/2, AIX, Win32, and I believe, Solaris.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)