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: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.180.98.234 with SMTP id el10mr625834wib.3.1345237550513; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: n2ni181710291win.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!plix.pl!newsfeed2.plix.pl!wsisiz.edu.pl!newsfeed2.atman.pl!newsfeed.atman.pl!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:49:01 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com> <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com> <1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net> <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <502bc4df$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2012 17:48:47 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 433e11aa.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=fnF[f@A1jLh>_cHTX3jm=TXmo\7=Y7m X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-15T17:48:47+02:00 List-Id: On 15.08.12 13:55, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:08:37 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> I would say that a network connecting the electrical devices >> of a car does not counts as heterogeneous. > > How are the ECU, navigation system, ABS, windshield wiper homogenous? They are homogeneous in that the 4 suppliers agree to be supplying for the same 1 system, under the "umbrella-notion" of car electronics. Chances are that "it is understood" that the ways of data communication in a car meet the expectations of electrical engineering that all suppliers share. They will, I bet, all agree that a PDF document sent to a windshield wiper will not be the most effective way of controlling the thing. A heterogeneous system in this sense is one where a supplier will supply data to, say, anything, irrespective of how any one client is going to process the data. The umbrella-notion is different. Again, PDFs may not be welcome as a carrier of data (although this happens). XML documents allow for much better independent processing of data; facilitating easy integration of data from very different sources, sources even, whose existence you may want to hide from each other. Joining the two worlds, some measuring instrument at a service station, of any make and model, could be connected to the internet to supply measurement statistics to just any contemporary business information system. The recipient gets to choose how to process the data, but the mechanics of processing is already in place; no worries about protocols, no questions regarding syntax.