Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model

[asdfd esadd]

There is a connex, fork() might be a bad example,

it's simple - yes but 20 years have passed as Solaris
is finding:

pid_t fork(void); vs. 

the next step in the evolution CreateProcess

BOOL CreateProcess(
  LPCTSTR lpApplicationName,
  LPTSTR lpCommandLine,
  LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpProcessAttributes,
  LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpThreadAttributes,
  BOOL bInheritHandles,
  DWORD dwCreationFlags,
  LPVOID lpEnvironment,
  LPCTSTR lpCurrentDirectory,
  LPSTARTUPINFO lpStartupInfo,
  LPPROCESS_INFORMATION lpProcessInformation

evolved to .Net Process Class

System.Object
   System.MarshalByRefObject
      System.ComponentModel.Component
         System.Diagnostics.Process
[C#]
public class Process : Component
[C++]
public __gc class Process : public Component


with a full list of members mapping to the overall
model per se (link to hell, but they've got a point) 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlrfsystemdiagnosticsprocessmemberstopic.asp


So let me restate the need again for 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



--- Kenn Humborg <kenn@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/


__________________________________
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/