Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada??

[Adrien Plisson <aplisson-news@stochastique.net>]

Jerome Hugues wrote:

> In article <42e4e8ea$0$3948$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, Adrien Plisson wrote: 
> 
>>strange enough when one knows about annex E. i think it exists for 
>>inter-operability between softwares written using different languages. 
>>(Annex E is kinda Ada'ish).
> 
> I'm not sure this was the main goal of annex E, perhaps an Ada
> "historian" can confirm. Annex B (Interface to Other Languages) seems
> more relevant for this topic.

well, technically, you are right: the goal of annex B is interfacing 
software components written in Ada with other components written in 
other languages. Annex E has nothing to do with this case.

when re-reading my sentence, i see i should have stated it this way: 
"i think that _MPI bindings for Ada_ exists for inter-operability 
between woftwares written using different languages".

this means making softwares written in different languages, including 
Ada, communicate through MPI, on a cluster for example. my point was 
that the Ada Distributed Annex is of no-help when components written 
in other languages are involved: it is specifically tailored for Ada 
softwares.

which leads us directly to my last point: making ada distributed 
softwares written using annex E communicate with other distributed 
softwares written using MPI could be possible through the use of a 
middleware (like PolyORB) if that middleware is able to translate back 
and forth between DSA and MPI.

>>(side note: shouldn't PolyORB provide a personality which would allow 
>>an Ada Annex E enabled application to inter-operate with a MPI enabled 
>>amplication ?)
> 
> PolyORB *c*ould, the "only" point is to provide the corresponding
> protocol personality (if MPI defines its own protocol), and (I
> suppose) some way to map Ada calls onto MPI functions (and
> vice-versa). I'm not an MPI expert.

it was just a suggestion thrown here for free. i'm no expert in the 
field of distributed softwares. i also think it *c*ould be possible, 
but i don't know if the PolyORB development team ever thought of this.

> *sh*ould is another question .. but we welcome all new contributors
> onboard ;)

it is with deep regret that i have have to announce that, 
unfortunately, due to the lack of research in time-warping and the 
impossibility to extend free time (which might not be free as in "free 
beer"), this new contributor won't be me.

-- 
rien