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-Thread: 103376,a9bbfb8cd49f1a51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.agarik.com!skynet.be!newspost001!tjb!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:58:49 +0200 From: Adrien Plisson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: fr-fr, fr-be, fr, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada?? References: <42d64dde$0$64794$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42e0a2a6$0$36943$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42e0cd67$0$37532$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> <42E102A9.5060707@mailinator.com> <42e4e8ea$0$3948$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <42e50b87$0$30716$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: 308b4caa.news.skynet.be X-Trace: 1122306951 news.skynet.be 30716 81.246.250.140:3880 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@skynet.be Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3756 Date: 2005-07-25T17:58:49+02:00 List-Id: 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