Re: 2.7 thoughts: common well-architected object model

asdfd esadd
2003-10-11T18:34:13Z

There is a connex, fork() might be a bad example,

it's simple - yes but 20 years have passed as Solaris
is finding:

pid_t fork(void); vs.

the next step in the evolution CreateProcess

BOOL CreateProcess(
LPCTSTR lpApplicationName,
LPTSTR lpCommandLine,
LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpProcessAttributes,
LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpThreadAttributes,
BOOL bInheritHandles,
DWORD dwCreationFlags,
LPVOID lpEnvironment,
LPCTSTR lpCurrentDirectory,
LPSTARTUPINFO lpStartupInfo,
LPPROCESS_INFORMATION lpProcessInformation

evolved to .Net Process Class

System.Object
System.MarshalByRefObject
System.ComponentModel.Component
System.Diagnostics.Process
[C#]
public class Process : Component
[C++]
public __gc class Process : public Component

with a full list of members mapping to the overall
model per se (link to hell, but they've got a point)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlrfsystemdiagnosticsprocessmemberstopic.asp

So let me restate the need again for a:

* unified well architected core component model
which is extensible from OS services to application
objects

* the object model should be defined from the kernel
layer for process/events/devices etc. up and not
started at the application layer

--- Kenn Humborg <kenn@linux.ie> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:06:21AM -0700, asdfd
> esadd wrote:
> >
> > the other OS has an at this stage highly
> consistent
> > object model user along the lines of COM+ from the
> > kernel up encompassing a single event, thread etc.
> > model. Things are quite consistently wrapped, user
> > mode exposed if needed etc. If people were to
> fully
> > draw on it and the simpler .net BCL and not ride
> win32
> > that would (will be) a killer.
>
> I'm a Win32 developer by day, and I'm pretty
> familiar with
> the innards of COM. But I can't think of a _single_
> instance
> of anything in COM or COM+ which is dependent on the
> kernel,
> or which lives on the kernel-side of the
> kernel-mode/usr-mode
> boundary.
>
> COM and COM+ (and even .NET) are user-mode libraries
> and
> conventions.
>
> The closest thing _inside_ the WinNT/2K/XP kernel to
> your
> "object model" is the hierarchical directory of
> refcounted
> and ACLed objects inside the kernel (which is
> basically sysfs
> with ACLs).
>
> Can you give me _one_ example of a "consistent
> object model"
> between kernel and user mode in Windows? Maybe then
> we'll
> have a better understanding of what you're really
> looking
> for.
>
> Later,
> Kenn
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search