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: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!easy.in-chemnitz.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de> <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4ddbc090$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <80ebd58c-9a93-49a5-9a8b-167b25f47e5b@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:21:43 +0200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2011 21:21:44 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: cf9ddc46.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=K]QTCGD]Kk0^cW`WBF>WQ[ On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote: > On May 24, 7:59�am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" > wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2011 16:28:32 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >>> On 24.05.11 14:53, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >>>> Communication between programs >>>> is distribution, the annex E. >> >>> Yes. �If the endpoints of communication are Ada partitions. >>> Otherwise ...? >> >> Non-Ada programs = non-programs. No offence to other languages meant, it is >> just so that we cannot communicate them at this height of abstraction >> level. > > What do you mean by "this height"? What height? From what I can > tell, figuring out the correct level of abstraction is still part of > the problem, a part that needs a lot of thought. Whatever level it might be, it cannot be lower than the language level (Ada is a higher level typed language). > Being able to communicate with programs written in other languages > *is* a need, and I think that any package that would become part of > the Ada standard would have to meet that need. You cannot do that in a standard way because many of not most other language do not have means for that. This is why lower level protocols are used, e.g. sockets. > And I think it could > be done with some level of abstraction, i.e. with more than just a > thin binding to the Unix socket library, and in a way that allows for > different communications mechanisms than just sockets. (I have some > experience with this. I wrote a message-communication package that > had two different bodies, one that implemented the messages with VMS > mailboxes, and another that used sockets to communicate with a Solaris > host. This was due to requirements imposed by the customer, and it > was set up to communicate specifically with a program written by the > customer. But the package specification was the same in both cases > and was general enough that I was able to reuse it for other > purposes. So I'm convinced this is doable, but difficult to do in a > way that will meet the needs of as many users as possible.) If there were some messaging standard that could be done. Still that would not make it communication with programs, because messages are not much higher level than streams. The RPCs are higher. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de