> certainly adequate, and a COM solution makes it the most flexible in terms
> of extensibility.
No, not THE most flexible. Some platforms had ORBs that already allow
load balancing, etc.
Quote:> As a platform, Java gives you very little and is incredibly immature. The
AWT is rather immature, but people are using it for middleware. Due to
it's platform-independence, it is becoming very popular for
integrating back-office stuff.
Quote:> VM itself is, and has become, a very useful part of the Win32 platform - in
> that it offers a method of having a single binary for every processor.
Every Win32 processor?
Quote:> If everyone implemented the J/Direct COM interfaces for different
> processors (and wrapped other platforms in terms of the J/Direct COM
> interfaces), then we can carry on with what we have, and yet still have the
> potential for platform neutral applications:
No, the difficulty is the different behaviour of those different
interfaces on the systems. It becomes a difficult problem to specify
how they should operate, and Win32-equivalent interfaces, I suspect,
might be more difficult to implement than AWT. AWT was in fact meant
to use information specified in such a way that an interface that
resembled the native one for that platform could result. Hence, it
does not allow one to be too explicit. Very explicit=not portable.
Hmm, on UNIX, Win32-related COM interfaces were NOT to be implemented,
and companies were complaining about Microsoft withholding technology,
but Microsoft said the stuff not implemented would not make sense.
Quote:> people mistake the Internet for the rest of the industry, that's when
> problems will occur. People get a fair deal for the hardware they're using,
The internet will be much of the industry. All sorts of things that do
not look like PCs will certainly be networked.
T i m o t h y W a t s o n
__/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down