Re: Distributed Objects between cats
Re: Distributed Objects between cats
- Subject: Re: Distributed Objects between cats
- From: The Karl Adam <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:34:39 -0400
This is a bug, and it has been reported to Apple radr web, the "fix"
is to remove the in qualifier and it will work again between version
compiled on 3.3 and 4.0. At least this is the workaround that Growl
uses so that DO between old versions of Growl and newer versions do
work. Please file this bug as well so that someone will do something
about it, either updating gcc in a minor way or any of the stack of
classes responsible for managing DO.
Wade:
While it's true that DO hasn't really seen much change in the time
that Apple has had Cocoa, it seems more like a case of not fixing what
isn't broke rather than just general neglect. If anything Apple could
be preparing to switch Networked DO over to using NSStreams allowing
for SSL contexts to give us actual encryption of sensitive data. That
is of course me looking at the glass half full, since I have nothing
to suggest this is the case other than the fact that most of Cocoa
slowly graduates from old code and formats, to new more open formats.
If anyone at apple knows what the future of DO has in store for us and
is willing to share, please do.
-Karl
On 8/11/05, Wade Tregaskis <email@hidden> wrote:
> > Can I ask where you drew this conclusion from? I asked some fairly
> > knowledgeable folks in #macdev today and no-one had heard this was
> > this case. If it is it's pretty major news.....can you let us know
> > how you know this? Has Apple announced it?
>
> It's half conjecture, half evidence. DO hasn't been updated in
> forever. The design is a mess, which makes it very painful for 3rd
> parties to extend it (I once did this, so I'm speaking from harsh
> experience).
>
> Also, back when I was playing with it, I was desperately seeking help
> from anyone with knowledge of the DO internals. At some point, from
> memory, someone (possibly from Apple) emailed me and said that
> basically there was no-one at Apple anymore who knew much about DO;
> they'd left or gone on to other projects.
>
> Well actually, that's perhaps not entirely true - Quinn got back to
> me at one point also, and said that Chris Kane and Doug Davidson are
> worth asking about DO. They're both still at Apple afaik, and both
> on this mailing list. I'm sure they'll pipe up now they've been
> singled out. :)
>
> In any case, the answers-to-questions ratio on the topic of DO is
> generally very very low, which is perhaps the best indicator. I try
> to answer any DO question that pops up, because of my affinity to it
> and because I really love the concept, but the nature of most
> problems are such that there's no simple solution.
>
> Furthermore, these days compatibility with other platforms, languages
> and environments is paramount, so things like DO have limited real
> world applications. SOAP and XML-RPC and whatever else are all the
> rage now. As much as I hate it, I'm looking now at moving one of my
> current projects off DO, partly for these reasons (but primarily
> because of security concerns*).
>
> * = Which, btw, isn't to say there's any known issues with DO, but
> it's too much of an unknown. It is a very advanced system, with a
> lot of variability, and while I've the utmost respect for those that
> wrote it, the design does have flaws**, which worry me.
>
> ** = And while I've mentioned this twice now, I can't really recall
> too many specific examples off hand. One I do know is that despite
> NSPort's being by nature high latency (i.e. network connections),
> some parts of the DO ecosystem expect them to behave synchronously...
> which you can overcome by prodding the runloop while effectively
> blocking, but then parts of DO might accidentally get triggered off
> other events, and at least one key part of the DO system is not re-
> entrant like that... ad infinum. It doesn't sound all *that* bad as
> a distant memory, but I remember wasting *months* trying to figure
> out all the idiosyncrasies.
>
> Wade Tregaskis (AIM/iChat, Yahoo, Gizmo & Skype: wadetregaskis, ICQ:
> 40056898, MSN: email@hidden, AV iChat & email:
> email@hidden, Jabber: email@hidden)
> -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden