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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM 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 pp10mr16579348pbc.1.1338982841973; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Path: l9ni13081pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Distributed Systems Annex, data sharing between programs Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <54af7ad7-7268-4d84-bafa-542e380a58f6@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> References: <8055acf5-188f-4b34-b4f0-83d70fee54f8@googlegroups.com> <96feb838-e0d3-4d06-abf0-79a8e74b5746@e20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.254 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1338982841 16839 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2012 11:40:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.182.34.254; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/7.0.1,gzip(gfe) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2012-06-06T04:40:41-07:00 List-Id: On 6 Cze, 12:09, Niklas Holsti wrote: > > This is what makes single-language-distributed-systems solutions kind > > of pointless. > > The fact that *some* distributed systems are multi-language does not > mean that a single-language solution is pointless. Insufficient, perhaps. Single-language systems (A) are a subset of multi-language systems (B). This means that if you need the B solution anyway (and you really need it) and it solve problem A as well, then having a separate A solution is pointless. You might still ask for it for performance reasons (it is easier to achieve good performance if you are not constrained by artificial common denominators), but this is a luxury that can be afforded only when you have other burning problems sorted out already. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Ada and that is why I argue that this is an effort that is better spent elsewhere. > In your experience, are > IDLs like CORBA used today? Or just sockets with ad-hoc protocols? I think that plain sockets are not very widely used by mature development teams and instead some ready protocols are adopted with varying degrees of completeness. CORBA is complete but huge and it seems to be less and less popular, but there are plenty of other solutions somewhere in this spectrum. One of the small, but potentially useful things I have found recently is this: http://msgpack.org/ It is not complete in the sense that it covers only the serialization part (and even there has many limitations), but for a number of problems seems like a nice and easy, off-hand solution. Yes, the Ada binding is missing there. And of course, I will benefit from the opportunity to shamelessly mention this: http://inspirel.com/yami4/ -- Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com