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: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-26 14:59:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!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 Operating System Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:56:52 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <3C8A3999.2000301@earthlink.net> <3C8B0191.3080705@mail.com> <3C8C3C4E.9030703@mail.com> <3C961352.DE25ADF1@avercom.net> <3C9F5DBE.4B71408F@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1017151013 4547 136.170.200.133 (26 Mar 2002 13:56:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Mar 2002 13:56:53 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: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21702 Date: 2002-03-26T13:56:53+00:00 List-Id: It would be interesting to build an OS that used some sort of command/response protocol with message passing and synchronous/asynchronous operation. Clearly, with the underlying mechanism invisible to the application, it wouldn't know if it made a request of the OS on the local chip, another chip on the bus or a processor clear across the country. The downside of it is that it would be inefficient for the cases where the requests were local. Some analysis and modeling would need to be done to determine if, given modern microprocessor speed, the penalty would be too extreme to warrant its use. It might be possible to provide *two* API's for the OS. One with standard, synchronous subprogram calls and another that duplicated the functionality with command/response messaging. But utilizing it (from a compiler perspective) might be way too complicated. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "James Ross" wrote in message news:gr10auodfr11kgtci3pvtj9dufc17r9tn5@4ax.com... > On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:25:53 GMT, Darren New wrote: > > >Imagine an OS where all IPC is done via > >message passing of messages between queues. > > This is an interesting concept. If "all" OS calls used such a > mechanism, then any application written is a target for a client / > server scenario without any redesign (or recompilation for that > matter). The OS could simply forward the calls to the server running > the app. It wouldn't matter if the box responding to the call was > your own or across the country! > JR >