Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!mhuxo!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxu!att!ihnp4!cbmvax!jesup
From: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: IPCMessages -- A Prototype
Keywords: IPC, standard, BADGE
Message-ID: <4136@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 88 01:36:31 GMT
References: <6306@well.UUCP> <2139@sugar.UUCP> <6338@well.UUCP> <2158@sugar.UUCP> <6387@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 17

In article <6387@well.UUCP> shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) writes:
>The object-oriented approach does offer the possibility of transparent
>network support while preserving arbitrarily complex structure
>definitions by defining a "packetize" method on objects to convert them
>into filesystem compatible entities.  By giving the method a standard
>name, such as `SAVE', a network server need know nothing about the
>object itself, it just has to try the `SAVE' method on it and if it
>works, it can transmit it over a network.  If not, it can't.  If you

	I really like this, it seems very natural, extensible, and clean.
I vote for OOIPC.  I think object-orientedness is a BIG win, especially in
dealing transparently with a networked envirionment.

>		Stuart Ferguson		(shf@well.UUCP)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup