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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.82.195 with SMTP id k3mr38038pay.23.1345102191571;
        Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 s8ni1146pbk.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:30:10 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <ak8h9w7770bx$.ncrikznng6v3$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <k01amo$jio$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com>
 <k04a26$doi$1@munin.nbi.dk> <op.wius1gdbka8ora@aspire.local>
 <k0bubm$loe$1@munin.nbi.dk> <op.wi0fliuoka8ora@aspire.local>
 <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com>
 <1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net> <k0ei0u$214$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <rznvpohy5adk$.1of2k7nklsaam.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vqx5pu5yd4m7.jlystys02zcx$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bc4df$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <sgy28ka2rw0a.119txios2lu0g$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bd3e6$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <17qgsq5y7or0v.16z18fmcew1lt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502c149e$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-16T09:30:10+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:29:01 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 15.08.12 20:53, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> And how does it make car's devices homogenous?
> 
> Homogeneous by all important points of view, see below.

Which points are as relevant to the car electronic infrastructure
homogeneity as the gravitational constant is. Otherwise, see:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/homogeneous+network

>> And
>> how these false premises could justify any application of XML even if per
>> some miracle they happened true?
> 
> The point of the exercise is to make apparent the variables
> that help decide when, and when not, to use XML,

List of the variables, please.

> based on
> a measure of homogeneity *of* systems, not a measure of
> perceived homogeneity or heterogeneity of devices *within*
> *a* system ("system" as in "car's electronics").

Good luck driving "systems", but, incidentally, the only thing that you
could actually sit into and steer is that pesky car full of "perceived"
electronics. 

How is the choice XML vs., say, CANopen motivated by specifically
homogeneity?

What is homogenous by XML, which is not by other protocols, and conversely?

Which weight has the above [quantitative? qualitative?] difference in the
context of the requirements, functional and non-functional, imposed on the
car software infrastructure?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de