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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-16 00:06:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newshub1.nl.home.com!news.nl.home.com!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!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: Development process in the Ada community Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:35:29 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB516E1.9030008@snafu.de> <3CB5BED1.3090702@snafu.de> <3CB77331.2030005@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018881330 6787 136.170.200.133 (15 Apr 2002 14:35:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2002 14:35:30 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:22584 Date: 2002-04-15T14:35:30+00:00 List-Id: Yeah, I like that idea, but I could still see some point in a lower level binding. On the one hand, it would be nice to have an interface that sent/received data to/from one or more partners that is based purely on streams & hides the underlying mechanisms. On the other hand, there are going to be lots of occasions where what you need is basically a one-to-one connection to Sockets that just looks Ada-ish instead of C-ish. (It could still use streams, obviously). Since the lower level binding is likely to be needed for producing any higher level communication abstraction, I'd say that it constituted A Good Start if it could become an Ada "convention". A higher level abstraction starts becoming problematic since there are so many possible ways of designing inter-process communication. Would it be one-to-one or one-to-many? Would it be some sort of message-registration and mailboxes? Or would you just have some general message queue that sees everything and the app discards what it doesn't want? See what I mean? It would be hard to come up with a model that would keep everyone happy. Better to get a lower level binding out there as a start and continue to think about a higher level abstraction for a later date. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Michael Erdmann" wrote in message news:3CB77331.2030005@snafu.de... > > I guess a more sbatract concept for interprocess communication on basis > of streams would be more apropriate. Personally i am always in favor of > complext services provided to the developen rather than doing low > level coding using a thin binding. >