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: 103376,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.77.1 with SMTP id o1mr105476paw.29.1345115948430;
        Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 s8ni1567pbk.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:18:28 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
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>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <k01amo$jio$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com>
 <k04a26$doi$1@munin.nbi.dk> <op.wius1gdbka8ora@aspire.local>
 <k0bubm$loe$1@munin.nbi.dk> <op.wi0fliuoka8ora@aspire.local>
 <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com>
 <1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net> <k0ei0u$214$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <rznvpohy5adk$.1of2k7nklsaam.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vqx5pu5yd4m7.jlystys02zcx$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bc4df$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <sgy28ka2rw0a.119txios2lu0g$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bd3e6$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <17qgsq5y7or0v.16z18fmcew1lt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502c149e$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <ak8h9w7770bx$.ncrikznng6v3$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <ak8h9w7770bx$.ncrikznng6v3$.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <502cd701$0$6568$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2012 13:18:25 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 747df6af.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Vn:]?0Dk1UK2:OR3:3gaE@McF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK<>_5CCM><;Onc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jMiDhHnS3<eGD
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-16T13:18:25+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 16.08.12 09:30, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:29:01 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 15.08.12 20:53, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> And how does it make car's devices homogenous?
>>
>> Homogeneous by all important points of view, see below.
> 
> Which points are as relevant to the car electronic infrastructure
> homogeneity as the gravitational constant is. Otherwise, see:
> 
> http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/homogeneous+network
> 
>>> And
>>> how these false premises could justify any application of XML even if per
>>> some miracle they happened true?
>>
>> The point of the exercise is to make apparent the variables
>> that help decide when, and when not, to use XML,
> 
> List of the variables, please.

They were given in the text, and even indicated syntactically.

I had hoped that someone with a PhD in mathematics would find
this a fair read, even when the subject matter might look strange
at first sight.
There may be some correlations among the variables, and as
usual one cannot approach a complex subject empirically without
multivariate analysis of everything that will drive decisions.


> Good luck driving "systems", but, incidentally, the only thing that you
> could actually sit into and steer is that pesky car full of "perceived"
> electronics. 

Yes, so what. Back to the subject matter.

> How is the choice XML vs., say, CANopen motivated by specifically
> homogeneity?

By a homogeneity that I have outlined when talking about measures
of sameness, in the context of the situation, which is full of motives.

> What is homogenous by XML, which is not by other protocols, and conversely?

XML is not a protocol, but that's an aside.

I did not say anything about XML being a measure of homogeneity
other than maybe that XML, if chosen, can be one means of tackling
heterogeneity of data in situations outlined.

I think I'm not going to be sidetracked this time.


> Which weight has the above [quantitative? qualitative?] difference in the
> context of the requirements, functional and non-functional, imposed on the
> car software infrastructure?

Yes, as I said, apply fuzzy logic, and doing so stipulates
that the persons involved can produce weights that work.
Actually, I am sure they have done so many times.