Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT) | From | asdfd esadd <> | Subject | Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model |
| |
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.
So let me restate the need:
* a unified well architected core component model which is extensible from OS services to application objects
* the object model should be defined from the kernel layer for process/events/devices etc. up and not started at the application layer
--- Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:45:14 PDT, asdfd esadd said: > > > * a unified well architected core component model > > which is extensible > > OK.. now for the terminally dense readers of the > list like myself, could > you repeat that in terms that people who have more > experience in > slinging C code than buzzwords will understand and > rally behind? > > Most of the time when I hear "component", somebody's > trying to invent > yet another message-passing paradigm. And although > there's certainly > a place where things like CORBA and the dbus stuff > solve problems, > you have to remember that this is a Linux kernel, > not Mach.... > > Alternatively, explain to me what this component > model will do for us > that updating the docs on the kernel API won't? >
> 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/
| |