[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Distributed Objects overkill?

From: M. Grabert
Subject: Re: Distributed Objects overkill?
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 06:12:07 +0000 (GMT)


On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Alex Perez wrote:

> This article was posted to Apple's cocoa-dev mailing list. Perhaps
> someone here would care to clarify for the folks there why this is or
> is not possible, and if the "laziness" is really the issue, as the
> poster claims. Here is a chance to fight the FUD.

I haven't read anything about laziness. It's just the lack of
documentation of Apple's DO implementation.

> On Nov 3, 2003, at 7:08 AM, Public Look wrote:
> > There has never been an issue with NeXT's distributed objects and
> > endianness as far as I know.
> >
> > NeXT's DO certainly worked seamlessly between
> > Openstep Mach on 68000

"OPENSTEP for MachOS/NeXT Computers"


> > Openstep running on top of Solaris SPARC

"OpenStep for Solaris"

> > Openstep running on top of HP-UX on PA-RISC

AFAIK there was no such thing.
I only know "NEXTSTEP/PA-RISC", which was a full OS.

> > I have foggy memories of possibly using NeXT's "Portable Distributed
> > Objects" (PDO) on DEC Alpha.
> >
> > The protocol deals with endianess internally.  It probably just
> > standardizes on one endian convention and automatically converts from
> > the wrong one.

Can't comment on this, since I never used DO on different architectures.

> > What has NEVER worked in distributed object between Openstep and
> > Gnustep.  GNUstep uses slightly different protocols and more
> > importantly, the systems archive objects differently.  DO between
> > Openstep/Cocoa and GNUstep definitely does NOT work unless something
> > has changed in the last year or so.

This is correct AFAIK. See

It is an old mail, so I don't know whether anything has changed, but I
doubt it ...

greetings, Max

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]