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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf02c238a92156a3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Windows Ada database support. Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 20:46:48 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <5e3e03a7.0411240431.7e037a4e@posting.google.com> <1jrbh30djhwuh$.cpwm02mv7d1d.dlg@40tude.net> <18u46qzjs6s8v.19927r9ay0kkh.dlg@40tude.net> <18dr1ffwet9j1.12bqctwpzcem7$.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net v4UPzwFJ1NY1wCF1NLxivAuhm7pJMGpz6s9GnkWrAi0p/JPy8= User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6850 Date: 2004-12-08T20:46:48+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:09:01 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >: Yes. But I meant a distributed system. Object persistence alone is not >: enough for a great number of applications. Translated into DB terms: a >: distributed system is when you have stored procedures. > > I think few people will agree here. A DBMS is usually serving your > distributed program, and also several different, possibly unrelated > distributed programs. > > Stored procedures need not even be present. > There might be good organisational reasons to use a common DB for > the different programs. Yes of course. Programs coupled via DB can be viewed as a primitive distributed application. Stored procedures were a more shiny example. > I think that "coordinating I/O" in the way of a DBMS is rather tricky. > Do you have an idea of a protocol that might extend Ada's rudimentary > distribution support to achieve at least as much data coordination > as contemporary DBMSs? We have tasks and protected objects. Add here marshaling parameters. So you will need by-value semantics for types of those. Hence, allow T'Class for everything. You will then need interface inheritance from concrete types (to have automatic user-defined type conversions between local and remote types). That drags MI. Do not forget to make tasks and protected objects OO. Something like COM/DCOM will be also very useful... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de