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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3283a610ea0294f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: What's Pure for Dist Sytems? Date: 1997/06/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251414436 Distribution: world References: <5oa5ol$8vv$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Andre Spiegel writes: > jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) writes: > > > Use CORBA? The Ada=>IDL mapping fully supports this sort of thing. > > The nice thing about the Distributed Systems Annex is that it allows > to distribute existing applications that were developed without > distribution in mind. With CORBA it's usually different: you have to > start by writing IDL for (at least) those objects that you want to > distribute, and in your Ada code, you have to adhere to a programming > style that is dictated by CORBA. I don't think it forces that much. I mean it is pretty simple to put a CORBA wrapper around an existing set of capabilities. But you do have to write the IDL for the interface(s)... > I would rather use Ada only, and not care about distribution issues > until very late in the development process. Check. > But you said "Ada=>IDL mapping"? Do you mean there's a reverse > mapping that allows CORBA to be used for distributing existing Ada > applications? That might be a different story. No, I just fumbled the order... There was talk at one point for doing the Ada => IDL direction but nothing has come of it. Yet. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari