Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!usc!polyslo!ttwang
From: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Parallelism and OOPSs
Message-ID: <1989Oct5.183150.15922@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 5 Oct 89 18:31:50 GMT
References: <477@schaefer.MATH.WISC.EDU> <5553@portia.Stanford.EDU> <17791@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Reply-To: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 24

sjs@bellcore.com (Stan Switzer) writes:

>Indeed, it seems like everyone has been trying to figure out how to do
>this lately.  For a moment, I'd like to leapfrog the question of
>re-entrancy and ask about the idea of "transactions" in an
>Object-Oriented model.  This could be considered relative to ordinary
>objects, persistent objects, or OO-databases.

OO languages should be free of concepts such as "transactions",
"processes", and "IPC".  These are best implemented by the operating
system.  The OO languages can be used to provide nice interface to the
raw operating system services.  This way, the OO language can be made
portable.  One only has to re-write the non-portable interface classes.

An ideal operating system should offer Client-Server support as a basic
service.

>Stan Switzer  sjs@bellcore.com

 -Thomas Wang ("This is a fantastic comedy that Ataru and his wife Lum, an
                invader from space, cause excitement involving their neighbors."
                  - from a badly translated Urusei Yatsura poster)

                                                     ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu