Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:57:44 +0100 | From | Kenn Humborg <> | Subject | Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model |
| |
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:06:21AM -0700, asdfd esadd wrote: > > 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.
I'm a Win32 developer by day, and I'm pretty familiar with the innards of COM. But I can't think of a _single_ instance of anything in COM or COM+ which is dependent on the kernel, or which lives on the kernel-side of the kernel-mode/usr-mode boundary.
COM and COM+ (and even .NET) are user-mode libraries and conventions.
The closest thing _inside_ the WinNT/2K/XP kernel to your "object model" is the hierarchical directory of refcounted and ACLed objects inside the kernel (which is basically sysfs with ACLs).
Can you give me _one_ example of a "consistent object model" between kernel and user mode in Windows? Maybe then we'll have a better understanding of what you're really looking for.
Later, Kenn
- 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/
| |