Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu!cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu!kannan@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu
From: kannan@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (R. Kannan)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Moving Objects
Message-ID: <211@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 89 19:05:43 GMT
References: <59237@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu
Distribution: usa
Lines: 31

From article <59237@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by murali@coracle.cis.ohio-state.edu (S Muralidharan):

> I believe concerns of software reusability definitely play a crucial
> role in determining what is efficient and what is not, in a distributed
> system. Consider the following argument.
> 
> The efficiency of moving an object depends, for example, on some of the
> following factors: the representation of the object, the distribution
> of the sub-objects of the object, the sizes of the object/sub-objects,
> and the hardware architecture. (Note: a sub-object may have sub-objects.)
> 

	If I may add it is the entire object family tree.

In pure object oriented view all the super class and the sub class. In KR
terminology all the inheirtance path as well have to be considered before
any CONSISTENT reasoning can be made with the moved object.

For example if dog is a mammal, and we dont know what a mammal is then
we cannot infer anything about dog either that can be useful or meaningful.

Thus it is the summation of the behavior and structure of the entire object
tree that gives the power to any these higher abstractions(objects, frames etc)

One solution can be that what is transferred is application-user driven.

One can probably request a local transfer, all explicit information about
the object is the ntransferred
or a global transfer which results in the entire tree being transferred.

--kannan