Re: Distributed Objects overkill?

[Alex Perez]

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.


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 Intel
> Openstep Enterprise/PDO running on top of Windows NT on Intel
> Openstep Mach SPARC
> Openstep running on top of Solaris SPARC
> Openstep running on top of HP-UX on PA-RISC
> 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.
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> cocoa-dev mailing list | cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com
> Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: 
> http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
--
Alex Perez
aperez@student.santarosa.edu
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat 
it."
--Thomas Jefferson