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=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd0ee7c9be011576 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-07 06:56:08 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Annex E (Just curious :-) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:43:55 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <985hgg$hqu$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3AA29386.E60A686D@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <980ekl$p4h$1@nh.pace.co.uk><3AA43C58.105B970D@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <982veb$l62$1@nh.pace.co.uk><983b1s$m6h$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <983ivv$r8c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 983976272 18270 136.170.200.133 (7 Mar 2001 14:44:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Mar 2001 14:44:32 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5502 Date: 2001-03-07T14:44:32+00:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wccg0gqqzvc.fsf@world.std.com... > A major goal of Annex E is to allow the user of a compiler, or a third > party, to provide the (low-level) communications software, *without* > modifying the compiler. The compiler provides marshalling/unmarshalling > of data structures and so forth, and there's a well-defined interface to > the communications software, so you should be able to plug in your own, > and still get RPC. Is there some way in which this goal is not > achieved? > Well, this is, of course, going to be implementation dependent. I could imagine a well designed compiler providing a well documented programming interface so that the embedded developer had to build some packages/subprograms & link with the compiler's runtime and - "then a miracle occurs" - and you're off and running with RPC's, etc. But you've still got potential problems because you may have different compilers for the different processors. They may not do things quite the same way, so you aren't necessarily going to be able to get the code from one compiler to RPC code from the other. The situation with simple data accesses is similar. Please, don't get me wrong here. I think the Distributed Annex is a great idea and goes a long way to providing solutions for a lot of problems. I'm just observing that in a problem space where you have dissimilar computers and non-standard communication mechanisms, it may be difficult to use Annex E. Even something like having to build the communication interface underneath the compiler is still a matter of mucking about with the compiler to adapt it to your machine. This doesn't get done at no cost. Maybe you can get there and maybe it even ends up cheaper in the long run because of reduced complexity, but it is something that needs to be looked at carefully depending on the environment. I recall hearing that in Japan, it is considered rude to say that you can't do something or that something is impossible - so they say "It would be difficult" instead. I'm wondering if I'm saying that with the same meaning? :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/