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: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <80ebd58c-9a93-49a5-9a8b-167b25f47e5b@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com> References: <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de> <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4ddbc090$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1306253480 28725 127.0.0.1 (24 May 2011 16:11:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19410 Date: 2011-05-24T09:07:42-07:00 List-Id: On May 24, 7:59=A0am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:28:32 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > On 24.05.11 14:53, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > >> Communication between programs > >> is distribution, the annex E. > > > Yes. =A0If the endpoints of communication are Ada partitions. > > Otherwise ...? > > Non-Ada programs =3D non-programs. No offence to other languages meant, i= t is > just so that we cannot communicate them at this height of abstraction > level. What do you mean by "this height"? What height? From what I can tell, figuring out the correct level of abstraction is still part of the problem, a part that needs a lot of thought. Being able to communicate with programs written in other languages *is* a need, and I think that any package that would become part of the Ada standard would have to meet that need. And I think it could be done with some level of abstraction, i.e. with more than just a thin binding to the Unix socket library, and in a way that allows for different communications mechanisms than just sockets. (I have some experience with this. I wrote a message-communication package that had two different bodies, one that implemented the messages with VMS mailboxes, and another that used sockets to communicate with a Solaris host. This was due to requirements imposed by the customer, and it was set up to communicate specifically with a program written by the customer. But the package specification was the same in both cases and was general enough that I was able to reuse it for other purposes. So I'm convinced this is doable, but difficult to do in a way that will meet the needs of as many users as possible.) -- Adam