From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d2df3e9ad18fa63 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-20 05:12:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!elnk-nf1-atl!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:57:44 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3EF2F6B8.3030706@noplace.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b5.57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 20 Jun 2003 11:57:52 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39489 Date: 2003-06-20T11:57:52+00:00 List-Id: I am not familiar with that standard, so I don't know about any specific problems. I would comment on some general problems: You might have a variety of problems tying one standard to another. If the other standard you are referencing is changed, this creates problems for updating your standard. Are you forced to update your standard? Do you rely on an out-of-date standard for some potentially long span of time? Its not insurmountable, but it is an issue. Also, this POSIX standard may be including a lot of things that might be difficult to support across a multitude of platforms. Ada was intended for machines ranging from bare-boards (no OS) up to full-size machines with lots of different OS's - some of which may not themselves be POSIX compliant. So you might have issues relating to the Least Common Denominator syndrome that standards have to deal with. I don't know at what level this standard is written to, but it may likely be dealing with lots of lower level things in order to be applicable across a variety of implementations. If Ada had a sockets package, I'd like to see it abstract away as much as possible from the mechanisms used to move the bits. Is that philosophy incompatible with the standard you cite? It is probably worth a look at the standard to determine its applicability, but I could imagine some reasons why it might not be the best answer. MDC Mark Lorenzen wrote: > There has lately been some discussions on c.l.a about defining a > socket package for use with Ada 200Y - either as a part of the > standard or as a de-facto standard socket package. > > So my big question is therefore: What's wrong with ISO/IEC 14519? It > is of course pretty big, but that is a natural consequence of POSIX > being big. > > I think it would be better to require that vendors support the ISO/IEC > 14519 instead of trying to define all sorts of packages that do not > have the inter-operability and common data types that the ISO/IEC > 14519 packages have. > > What is your opinion? > > - Mark -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================