Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!bbn.com!fkittred
From: fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: CMA threads usage?
Message-ID: <61996@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 91 17:17:49 GMT
References: <61984@bbn.BBN.COM> <331@oiscola.Columbia.NCR.COM> <18809@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Reply-To: fkittred@spca.bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge)
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 21

In article <18809@shlump.nac.dec.com> billmers@merlyn.enet.dec.com (Meyer Billmers) writes:
>> My understanding is that CMA is going to be replaced by Pthreads.  We are
>> aiming our (extensive) threads development at that enviroment.
>
>Pardon my ignorance (for that's probably what it is), but isn't CMA part of
>OSF's Distributed Computing Environment (DCE)? If so, how could OSF/1 using
>something else (e.g. Pthreads)?

This is a *VERY* good question which I have asked myself.  It goes with the
question "Doesn't Mach IPC make DCE NCS redundant on OSF/1?"  The best answer
I can come up with is that CMA and NCS are meant for environments other
than OSF/1 for people whom want a system that will work in a VMS or PC
environment.  Another likely scenerio is that the architecture of DCE was
defined before Mach and Pthreads were chosen for OSF/1.

regards,
fletcher
Fletcher Kittredge
Platforms and Tools Group, BBN Software Products
10 Fawcett Street,  Cambridge, MA. 02138
617-873-3465  /  fkittred@bbn.com  /  fkittred@das.harvard.edu