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-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.80.MISMATCH!news.astraweb.com!border3.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:59:52 +0200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2011 16:59:52 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 6f11f0c0.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=4X3;Jkj][Z1kUFX=Y?aLP;A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF7enW;^6ZC`4\`mfM[68DC3 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. >> Sockets are a about communication to the >> hardware, even if the other side is actually a program. > > From a programmer perspective, sockets may well be about > how to send a String value to some "Port" on some > "machine" identifiable via DNS. That is not Ada's programmer perspective. A value has the type. This type is an Ada type, otherwise we are back to the hardware level of bits and bytes. > No hardware in sight from this viewpoint. See above. >>> - Is sockets the right approach? Consider Erlang! >> >> An approach to what? > > A more general approach to sending data around. Data are meaningless (We had this discussion before). Meaningful is distribution and that is the annex E. > Why insist on sockets, then? Because sockets is the most widely used transport. >> Blurring transport and application level issues does not help. > > Yes. But at least we might try to learn, for the purpose of standardization, > what a typical transport level issue is versus what an application level issue > is---not so much about how solutions are built around sockets whenever > these happen to be available. Standards work seems a good opportunity > to isolate, in abstract terms, what a transport level issue is. I don't see how standards from the areas, where mentioned by you CAN is applied, could help. > If these issues are central to Ada programming, and future-proof, > there might be funding for isolating a few requirements. Then start > from these requirements. >From CAN Open, ASAP, ASAM etc? Are you kidding? > Or, if sockets are as important as, say, timers, or windows---if they > are important, then enlighten industry (or govt.) that they have the power > to ask for compiler-independent packages. Sockets are more or less realistic to support at the standard's level, though very difficult. >>> I doubt that the best answer to these questions can >>> be summed up by saying, "Mirror Posix sockets!". >> >> What was the question? (:-)) > > The original question was, "Why no socket package in the standard?". > > Let me rephrase it: "Why no ISO/IEC 14519:2001 package in the standard?" I cannot say. I do not care much about POSIX, maybe, others do not either. Why is it relevant to sockets? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de