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