ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[aotto2]

Hi,

  after Mirosoft create .NET , it's time to answer

  have a look to:

    http://home.t-online.de/home/aotto/mqcon_E.html

  to read more about it


mfg

  aotto :)


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Gerhard Häring]

Yes, but how does this have anything to do with Microsoft .NET?
Interfacing different languages via a message queue thru stdin/stdout? I
do not understand how you can compare that with Microsoft's .NET
technology. The core of .NET is the Common Language Runtime, and there
is already a competitor for this: it's called the Java platform :-)
Please elaborate on how you plan to implement a .NET equivalent.

Gerhard H�ring

aotto2@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   after Mirosoft create .NET , it's time to answer
> 
>   have a look to:
> 
>     http://home.t-online.de/home/aotto/mqcon_E.html
> 
>   to read more about it

-- 
Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply.
contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e
web:     http://highqualdev.com

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Vortex Vandel]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1009 bytes --]


"Gerhard H�ring" <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote in message
news:3A58AFF3.C67CAB11@bigfoot.de...
> Yes, but how does this have anything to do with Microsoft .NET?
> Interfacing different languages via a message queue thru stdin/stdout? I
> do not understand how you can compare that with Microsoft's .NET
> technology. The core of .NET is the Common Language Runtime, and there
> is already a competitor for this: it's called the Java platform :-)
> Please elaborate on how you plan to implement a .NET equivalent.

This looks really dumb (or is it just me?) why can't you use the commands
with out giveing them to some server? is this a really dodgy multi threading
with out multi threadding?(sort of the art of fighting with out fighting? :)

also what is this .net crud that is the "new" buzzword.. some one mentioned
it.. and I can't remember what he said :) some thing about a new message que
to replace interprocess communications or some thing? but it's for multi
computers or some thing?

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[aotto2]

Hi,

  the goal is the time you have to spend to write such an extension,
  The CO-Process based implementation taks some days, the full
  native implementation in TCL would take weeks or months.
  ( just remember how difficult it is to write an DB wrapper for
    a language )

  on of the main features is that you write the CO-Process one
  time and can reuse it for every language again and this is an
  big improvement.


mfg

  aotto :)




> This looks really dumb (or is it just me?) why can't you use the
commands
> with out giveing them to some server? is this a really dodgy multi
threading
> with out multi threadding?(sort of the art of fighting with out
fighting? :)
>
> also what is this .net crud that is the "new" buzzword.. some one
mentioned
> it.. and I can't remember what he said :) some thing about a new
message que
> to replace interprocess communications or some thing? but it's for
multi
> computers or some thing?
>
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Gerhard Häring]

I do agree that wrapping C language libraries to scripting languages or
other HLL is a task that's far from pleaseant. But 

1) mqSeries doesn't seem to be free (not even free in the GNU sense, to
which I happen to not agree, but just the ��� sense of free). That's
euro :-)
2) I am in the process of interfacing a large C library to Ada, and
sometimes I wish there was a COM equivalent for Unix. Then this would be
a non-issue.
3) Even going the heavyweight way of using CORBA IDL seems to be easier
than writing a wrapper for each scripting langage. At least you only
have to write the wrapper once and it is guaranteed to work for each
language that has a CORBA mapping. Personally I do not believe in
automatic conversion � la SWIG, c2ada and the like.

I am just starting to fiddle with CORBA, though. But I rather like it.
Give me a CORBA implementation that connects code written in two
different languages in in-process, and we can even forget about .NET
altoghether. That would be the absolute killer, but I do not know if
this would even be possible.

Gerhard

aotto2@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   the goal is the time you have to spend to write such an extension,
>   The CO-Process based implementation taks some days, the full
>   native implementation in TCL would take weeks or months.
>   ( just remember how difficult it is to write an DB wrapper for
>     a language )
> 
>   on of the main features is that you write the CO-Process one
>   time and can reuse it for every language again and this is an
>   big improvement.
> 
> mfg
> 
>   aotto :)
> 
> > This looks really dumb (or is it just me?) why can't you use the
> commands
> > with out giveing them to some server? is this a really dodgy multi
> threading
> > with out multi threadding?(sort of the art of fighting with out
> fighting? :)
> >
> > also what is this .net crud that is the "new" buzzword.. some one
> mentioned
> > it.. and I can't remember what he said :) some thing about a new
> message que
> > to replace interprocess communications or some thing? but it's for
> multi
> > computers or some thing?
> >
> >
> 
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/

-- 
Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply.
contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e
web:     http://highqualdev.com

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[David Botton]

You have it, the JVM. You can write code in multiple languages that targets
the JVM and uses CORBA. There is your .NET equivelant.

What you were probably thinking of was something all together different, ie.
a CORBA implementation that does what COM does, ie. allows inproc multiple
objects regardless of their source code origin.

David Botton


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerhard H�ring" <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de>

> Give me a CORBA implementation that connects code written in two
> different languages in in-process, and we can even forget about .NET
> altoghether. That would be the absolute killer, but I do not know if
> this would even be possible.

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3A5A8457.344AAD24@bigfoot.de>,
  Gerhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote:
> 2) I am in the process of interfacing a large C library to Ada, and
> sometimes I wish there was a COM equivalent for Unix. Then this would

Well, there is Bonobo. Check out
http://www.helixcode.com/tech/bonobo.php3 . It says its related to GNOME
somehow, so I'm not sure if GNOME is required to use it or not. It does
look like it requires GTK+ though.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Juergen Pfeifer]

> Well, there is Bonobo. Check out
> http://www.helixcode.com/tech/bonobo.php3 . It says its related to GNOME
> somehow, so I'm not sure if GNOME is required to use it or not. It does
> look like it requires GTK+ though.
>
Which sounds strange! What has an component model to do with a graphics
library? Sometimes people gets confused between OLE and COM. COM is
the component model and has actually nothing to do with Windows. It has
been submitted as RFC proposal to the IETF and there exist implementations
on a variety of UNIXes and even on the OS/390 Mainframe. These ports
are not free, maybe that's the reason why they are not widely known and
used. OLE is an COM class library dealing with compound document
technology (inplace editing of document objects, embedding- and linking
of document objects, structured document storage etc.). This has some
relations to Graphical stuff (editing) and is therefor Windows specific.
It has later been renamed into ActiveX.

Actually ActiveX (OLE) is whats application developers attracts. Simply
embedding a browser window or an Excel spreadsheet or whatever is
available as OLE component into your app is so easy and has no parallel
in the UNIX world.

If you compare CORBA to COM, the OLE pendant would have been
OpenDoc and I'm still a bit astonished that all the now converted
Open Source companies didn't consider to push OpenDoc to become
Open Source. Instead people reinvented the wheel and created
KParts and Bonobo whose functionality overlaps with OpenDoc.

J�rgen

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

Ted Dennison wrote in message <93i10r$ujs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <3A5A8457.344AAD24@bigfoot.de>,
>  Gerhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote:
>> 2) I am in the process of interfacing a large C library to Ada, and
>> sometimes I wish there was a COM equivalent for Unix. Then this would
>
>Well, there is Bonobo. Check out
>http://www.helixcode.com/tech/bonobo.php3 . It says its related to GNOME
>somehow, so I'm not sure if GNOME is required to use it or not. It does
>look like it requires GTK+ though.

Bonobo is the object framework for gnome. That is presumably why it requires
GTK+.


Greetings,

Bonobo ( was ANNOUNCE: Free-NET )

[Hans-Olof Danielsson]

Ted Dennison skriver:

> Well, there is Bonobo. Check out
> http://www.helixcode.com/tech/bonobo.php3 .

Are there "Bonobo-components" implemented in Ada95 or used by Ada95 programs
today? Anyone? If yes, where to find them?

Regards
Hans-Olof Danielsson

Danitek AB, Dragspelsv. 20, S-732 32 Arboga, Sweden
Tel: int +46 589 140 38, Email: Hans-Olof.Danielsson@swipnet.se
Web: www.node98.com/danitek, Member of Node98  www.node98.com

Re: Bonobo ( was ANNOUNCE: Free-NET )

[Ted Dennison]

In article <008801c07be9$425902e0$967e97d4@d1>,
  comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote:
> Ted Dennison skriver:
> Are there "Bonobo-components" implemented in Ada95 or used by Ada95
> programs today? Anyone? If yes, where to find them?

I'm not aware of any, but then Bonobo is considerably younger than COM.
I don't think its been around for more than a year. It would be nice to see.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[Ng Pheng Siong]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

According to Gerhard H�ring  <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de>:
> I am just starting to fiddle with CORBA, though. But I rather like it.
> Give me a CORBA implementation that connects code written in two
> different languages in in-process, and we can even forget about .NET
> altoghether. That would be the absolute killer, but I do not know if
> this would even be possible.

ILU - Inter-Language Unification

ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ilu/ilu.html



-- 
Ng Pheng Siong <ngps@post1.com> * http://www.post1.com/home/ngps

Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET

[aotto2]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 927 bytes --]


> Yes, but how does this have anything to do with Microsoft .NET?
> Interfacing different languages via a message queue thru stdin/stdout?
I
> do not understand how you can compare that with Microsoft's .NET
> technology. The core of .NET is the Common Language Runtime, and there
> is already a competitor for this: it's called the Java platform :-)
> Please elaborate on how you plan to implement a .NET equivalent.
>
> Gerhard H�ring
>
> aotto2@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >   after Mirosoft create .NET , it's time to answer
> >
> >   have a look to:
> >
> >     http://home.t-online.de/home/aotto/mqcon_E.html
> >
> >   to read more about it
>

Hi,

  you arr right, MqCon isn't the answer its the way MqCon was written
    ==> CO-Process
  MqCon is just an example on how to glue together "MqSeries" with
  TCL based on the CO-Process architecture

mfg

  aotto :)



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/