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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1eef1e815cf70416
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr2613215pbc.1.1339244747487;
        Sat, 09 Jun 2012 05:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni33605pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!193.252.117.184.MISMATCH!feeder.news.orange.fr!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:25:45 +0200
From: Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net>
Organization: Home - http://www.obry.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr-FR;
 rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems Annex, data sharing between programs
References: <0d661453-423c-484b-90cd-4e80ffe1db5b@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
 <jqu7qb$i1h$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <6c92c206-0bfe-49ad-a732-fa93949e3032@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <6c92c206-0bfe-49ad-a732-fa93949e3032@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4fd340ca$0$6186$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Jun 2012 14:25:46 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 90.23.18.69
X-Trace: 1339244746 reader.news.orange.fr 6186 90.23.18.69:14631
X-Complaints-To: abuse@orange.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-06-09T14:25:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Maciej,

> Yep. The point is - this is no longer a single program. Just as our
> communication here is not between separate partitions of a single
> human entity, but rather between separate and autonomous entities.
> Look, we don't even need to be awake at the same time for this
> communication to happen. Why? How would you do that with "calls"
> instead of "messages"?

As said in my previous message. With a queue. I have used this scheme,
it works perfectly well. You can even launch new message consumers
dynamically or stop some. You can also start new message producers, and
of course to avoid bottleneck you can have multiple queue on the network.

All this is just easy with Ada DSA, and safe as for all other Ada features.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B