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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3283a610ea0294f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Andre Spiegel Subject: Re: What's Pure for Dist Sytems? Date: 1997/06/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251326367 Sender: spiegel@moon References: <5oa5ol$8vv$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Organization: Freie Universitaet Berlin X-Access: 16 17 19 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) writes: > Andre Spiegel writes: > > However, even under this proposal, Ada.Strings.Bounded and > > Ada.Strings.Unbounded are still non-remote. I find this an > > intolerable restriction, too, and I wonder if anyone sets out to > > remedy this... > Use CORBA? The Ada=>IDL mapping fully supports this sort of thing. The nice thing about the Distributed Systems Annex is that it allows to distribute existing applications that were developed without distribution in mind. With CORBA it's usually different: you have to start by writing IDL for (at least) those objects that you want to distribute, and in your Ada code, you have to adhere to a programming style that is dictated by CORBA. I would rather use Ada only, and not care about distribution issues until very late in the development process. But you said "Ada=>IDL mapping"? Do you mean there's a reverse mapping that allows CORBA to be used for distributing existing Ada applications? That might be a different story. Andre Spiegel Free University of Berlin