🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <58310@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
murali@catamaran.cis.ohio-state.edu (S Muralidharan) writes:

>
> Vladmir G. Ivanovic writes:
>
> >Maybe there is something I'm missing, but why on earth would one want
> >to send an object to another node?  Isn't it like passing an array to
> >a procedure?  Why not just pass the name of the object?  In a truly
> >distributed system, the name server will provide the access path.
> >Then there is only one copy and no consistency problem.
>
>       A very good question. In fact, in the context of reusable software
> there are several problems with any object movement.

I agree. These problems will impact both class and system design.

>       Any approach which advocates object movement generally assumes
> that a single person is both the developer and a client of a
> component.

As Murali says later, this is indeed an invalid assumption. I am not
sure, however, whether anybody actually makes this assumption. If
someone is unfamiliar with object-oriented technologies, specifically
with the issues of object, class and system design, they might make
this mistake.

> This assumption is certainly invalid, if software reuse
> is based on component specifications and not source code,
> as done in Ada. While only the developers know the details of the software,
> only the clients know the nature of the hardware architecture where
> the software would be executed.

I agree.

As I said in a previous posting, depending on the situation, "object
[and class] movement" may be a necessity. Please note, that I am not
advocating that objects and/or classes be moved without some technical
justification. Nor am I saying that "object movement" will be the
norm. I am merely suggesting it be an option which is selected based
on some sound technical judgement.

                                -- Ed Berard
                                   (301) 353-9652