lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model

    unfortunately it's rather a jump into elegance. The
    other OS component model is quite well architected.
    Hence what's needed is _a similar architecture effort
    which may _abstract many things in the beginning to be
    filled in later. Ther's a dire need for a sound and
    similarly elegant (or better) model.

    There can still be many e.g. widget libraries for GUIs
    but if new ones were to build on a common model (or
    wrapped) Linux would kill Windows through the by now
    larger base of contributors. If that apparent lack of
    architecture guidance continues we get another dozen
    class libraries for everything for each application
    nicely exposing it which then nobody learns/uses. With
    a common object model Linux can push the envelope,
    without it it's leaving it to others.


    --- Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:06:21 PDT, you said:
    > >
    > > the other OS has an at this stage highly
    > consistent
    > > object model user along the lines of COM+ from the
    > > kernel up encompassing a single event, thread etc.
    > > model. Things are quite consistently wrapped, user
    > > mode exposed if needed etc. If people were to
    > fully
    > > draw on it and the simpler .net BCL and not ride
    > win32
    > > that would (will be) a killer.
    >
    > If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do
    > it too?
    >
    > I submit to you that the reason The Other OS needs
    > the concept of a object
    > model from the kernel through to user space is
    > because the architects had a
    > very fuzzy concept of "boundary". Yes, you need
    > stuff like that if your GUI
    > and your IIS (yes, really, Win2003 apparently has
    > IIS on the kernel side of the
    > boundary now). If you have a syscall interface, the
    > kernel is free to
    > implement read() in any way it wants, and the
    > userspace calling read() is able
    > to use it for pretty much anything.
    >
    > Ask yourself: (a) Could I implement .NET in
    > userspace using the supplied syscalls?
    > (b) If .NET was implemented and enforced
    > kernel-side, could I implement CORBA?
    >
    > Remember - it's quite possible that the user wants
    > some OTHER GUI, or some
    > OTHER thread model, or some OTHER..... We're not
    > the operating system run by
    > jackboots.
    >
    >

    > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    http://shopping.yahoo.com
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.026 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site