PolyORB - building and applications

PolyORB - building and applications

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

Hi!

I've written here before about my problems getting a robust system
running Annex E with GLADE.

So far, I've found GLADE under 3.15 to be problematic with
what appear to be race hazards with calls via Remote Access to Class-Wide
types (RACW).  Using a recent GLADE under GNAT GPL 2006 and
gcc 4.1.1, I've had the problem of breaking with nested
inter-partition calls.  I'm looking into work-arounds for this,
which *might* give a solution.  But it's worrying to me that
I can't get any affordable compiler to run even some simple
test cases with Ada+Annex E.  I have tried three different
machines and Linux OSs (Debian, FC5, Red Hat).  And several
compilers (GPL 2006, 4.1.0, 4.1.1).

So I'm left with the stark choices:

1) Drop Annex E code altogether - don't use distributed code :(
2) Use Annex E but drop GARLIC, replace with PolyORB DSA
3) Use distributed code, but not Annex E (eg use CORBA)
4) Debug the failing test-cases in GLADE
5) Put up with the failures.  Hope things'll get better.
6) Something else(?)

Choice (1) would involve programming alternate communication
mechanisms to get the components of the program talking to each other -
perhaps using pipes or files?  This is quite a lot of work :(

Choice (2) looks promising, but I have never managed to compile
PolyORB DSA.  What does this need?

Choice (3) also looks promising, but involves quite a lot of additional
work building the interfaces needed. It would be much less
elegant, I think - and might require learning the intricacies of CORBA(?)

Choice (4) would be very frustrating - I've tried already, and
I'm not sure I'd succeed.

Choice (5) isn't very satisfactory, but involves least effort.
Perhaps Annex E is considered obsolescent and will be dropped at
some point in the future?

Q:  Has anyone here used PolyORB DSA with GLADE?  Is it reliable?

Q:  Which versions of the compiler can build PolyORB DSA?  It seems
to need a newer compiler than I can get hold of!  Is good Annex E
support an important goal of PolyORB?

Q:  What is the simplest approach to migrating client-server code
from Annex E to an application personality well supported by PolyORB?
Which personality might be best?  Are there any real eaxamples
of applications using PolyORB out there?

I'd like to get on with the next stages of code development, but
I'm unable to proceed without a reliable base to work from :(

Thanks for more ideas!
--
Adrian

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 15:56 +0000, Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

[DSE]

> So I'm left with the stark choices:
> 6) Something else(?)

I recall someone mentioning an Ada program working
as an Erlang node. So perhaps you could leave the
communication to an Erlang system?


-- Georg 

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Stephen Leake]

"Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:


> So I'm left with the stark choices:
>
> 1) Drop Annex E code altogether - don't use distributed code :(
> 2) Use Annex E but drop GARLIC, replace with PolyORB DSA
> 3) Use distributed code, but not Annex E (eg use CORBA)
> 4) Debug the failing test-cases in GLADE
> 5) Put up with the failures.  Hope things'll get better.
> 6) Something else(?)

Use a supported compiler with Annex E.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:18:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> writes:
> 
> 
>> So I'm left with the stark choices:
>>
>> 1) Drop Annex E code altogether - don't use distributed code :(
>> 2) Use Annex E but drop GARLIC, replace with PolyORB DSA
>> 3) Use distributed code, but not Annex E (eg use CORBA)
>> 4) Debug the failing test-cases in GLADE
>> 5) Put up with the failures.  Hope things'll get better.
>> 6) Something else(?)
> 
> Use a supported compiler with Annex E.

Good idea!

What choices are there under $12,000? ($2000 might be OK)
--
Adrian

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:18:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

(snip)

>> Use a supported compiler with Annex E.
> 
> Good idea!
> 
> What choices are there under $12,000? ($2000 might be OK)

If you qualify for the GAP program, you will get good support from AdaCore
in exchange for Ada advocating, basically. Your bug reports will receive
answers in form of workarounds and bugfixes to CVS.

http://www.adacore.com/home/academia/

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Jerome Hugues]

In article <4n9v82F9ccvrU1@individual.net>, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:18:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>>> Use a supported compiler with Annex E.
>> 
>> Good idea!
>> 
>> What choices are there under $12,000? ($2000 might be OK)
> 
> If you qualify for the GAP program, you will get good support from AdaCore
> in exchange for Ada advocating, basically. Your bug reports will receive
> answers in form of workarounds and bugfixes to CVS.
> 
> http://www.adacore.com/home/academia/

AFAIK, this compiler is very similar to GNAT GPL.

-- 
Jerome

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Jerome Hugues wrote:

> In article <4n9v82F9ccvrU1@individual.net>, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
>> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:18:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> 
>> (snip)
>> 
>>>> Use a supported compiler with Annex E.
>>> 
>>> Good idea!
>>> 
>>> What choices are there under $12,000? ($2000 might be OK)
>> 
>> If you qualify for the GAP program, you will get good support from
>> AdaCore in exchange for Ada advocating, basically. Your bug reports will
>> receive answers in form of workarounds and bugfixes to CVS.
>> 
>> http://www.adacore.com/home/academia/
> 
> AFAIK, this compiler is very similar to GNAT GPL.

Actually, since the 2006 edition, they're the very same compiler. The
difference, of course, is in the support you get.

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:31:40 +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:

> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:18:56 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>>> Use a supported compiler with Annex E.
>> 
>> Good idea!
>> 
>> What choices are there under $12,000? ($2000 might be OK)
> 
> If you qualify for the GAP program, you will get good support from AdaCore
> in exchange for Ada advocating, basically. Your bug reports will receive
> answers in form of workarounds and bugfixes to CVS.
> 
> http://www.adacore.com/home/academia/

I'm exactly the kind of Ada user who needs a reliable compiler, with
professional support, if necessary.  I don't qualify for an academic
version with support - I use Ada software to run my business.

To justify paying money for a supported compiler, I need to be
confident that it will improve my business (after accounting for the
(possibly) saved time and the cost).

It might take a month to rewrite code to avoid suspected libraries.
I would consider that a somewhat better choice than paying $12k for
someone else to look into problems for me.  Other businesses might
reasonably take a different view.  The situation becomes more uncertain
if I am unsure whether or when the library will be fixed, and whether
it will be available to the public soon.  Even at $2000, the choice
would not be clear cut.

Ada's prospects were severely curtailed by the high cost of
compilers in the 1980s.  GNAT now gives the casual user a very
high quality product at nil price.  But if reasonably priced,
supported, complete (incl. annexes and popular libraries) aren't
available for professional use, people will rightly question
the long-term viability of the language.
--
Adrian

Re: PolyORB - building and applications

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

Georg> I recall someone mentioning an Ada program working as an Erlang
Georg> node. So perhaps you could leave the communication to an Erlang
Georg> system?

http://www.rfc1149.net/devel/adaerl