Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU!RWS
From: RWS@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Short paper comparing X with NeWS
Message-ID: <870210082918.3.RWS@KILLINGTON.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 08:29:00 EST
Article-I.D.: KILLINGT.870210082918.3.RWS
Posted: Tue Feb 10 08:29:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 07:45:27 EST
References: <2479@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 40


    From: jade!lapis.berkeley.edu!oster@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Phillip Oster)

    ... using the following (idiotic) argument:

Now, now, let's be polite...

    2.) SInce you CAN do this in NEWS, the author of the paper assumes your
    MUST do this.

I never said this.

    3.) You cannot do it in X. (The prootocol is low level, and has no
    extension language.)

X is extensible, and one could certainly define a (reasonable) extension
language if it seemed desirable.

    4.) The author shows that there are situations where it is not appropriate
    to extend the communications protocol.

True enough.

    5.) The author concludes that NEWS is bad. This conclusion would hold if
    (4) were common and (2) were true. Neither is the case.

My conclusions were based on more than just the extension language.  Good of
you to ignore that fact.  Also, I assume you have a laundry list of cases
where an extension language is useful; perhaps you could publish them, and
enlighten us.  Perhaps you can tell us you have actually implemented them
(both ways), and convince us as well as enlighten us.

    NEWS can't quite do [dynamic load balancing],

I'm glad you said this.

    but it is a step closer to having what you need to do this than X is.

Again, the fact that the X core has no extension language does not preclude
defining one.