Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model

[Kenn Humborg]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:06:21AM -0700, asdfd esadd wrote:
> 
> 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.  

I'm a Win32 developer by day, and I'm pretty familiar with
the innards of COM.  But I can't think of a _single_ instance
of anything in COM or COM+ which is dependent on the kernel,
or which lives on the kernel-side of the kernel-mode/usr-mode
boundary.

COM and COM+ (and even .NET) are user-mode libraries and
conventions.

The closest thing _inside_ the WinNT/2K/XP kernel to your
"object model" is the hierarchical directory of refcounted
and ACLed objects inside the kernel (which is basically sysfs
with ACLs).

Can you give me _one_ example of a "consistent object model"
between kernel and user mode in Windows?  Maybe then we'll
have a better understanding of what you're really looking
for.

Later,
Kenn


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/