Re: [vos-d] bridging to COM, .NET, DBUS (was: second draft requirements)

2007-02-26 Thread Reed Hedges
In the case of dbus, it probably makes sense to represent dbus sources as sites and vobjects, and dbus messages become vos messages. If there's a semantic equivalent to a dbus thing in VOS, you have the dbus vobject send it to a vobject to translate it.Then all the dbus concepts map to vos

Re: [vos-d] bridging to COM, .NET, DBUS (was: second draft requirements)

2007-02-25 Thread Reed Hedges
Lalo Martins wrote: Conversely, on Linux, I have long wanted to have d-bus bindings, which would achieve more or less the same effect. That is something that probably will be in s5 out of the box -- you add a site extension (assuming site extensions exist in s5; or whatever is the equivalent

Re: [vos-d] bridging to COM, .NET, DBUS (was: second draft requirements)

2007-02-25 Thread Peter Amstutz
Quick thing to point out, COM and D-BUS are fundamentially different in that COM objects are usually loaded in-process, whereas D-BUS is used to communicate between running processes. Interoperability has a number of different dimensions, and concurrency/flow-of-control issues are a critical