Slashdot Mirror

If you are a full-on Free Software advocate and only care about writing free/open source software, then I can see why KDE/Qt is usually the best choice. On the other hand, if you are interested in commercial development, like myself, you need to look at pricing as well. If you only want to develop for Windows, then the "SDK" is free and the "IDE" can range from free to a couple of grand with a premium MSDN subscription. But Qt itself costs around $1780 to $6600 on a per developer basis depending on console/GUI one/two/three platform development. If you work for a company with any clout, you can probably cut that cost in half for either platform.

Although I'm not doing anything now, the first thing I would use for a lean startup cross platform development is ACE with wxWidgets on Visual Studio Express or Eclipse with CDT.

It is just my opinion, but I think the pricing for Qt is too high. I wonder how big the Linux Desktop "pie" could grow if we could all settle on Qt if it fell under LGPL or BSD? Trolltech's smaller piece of a bigger pie, might still be bigger than the one they have now. Putting GPL/Free Software asisde for a second, from a commercial perspective, I don't want a "new Microsoft" on the Linux Desktop. Perhaps someone with some cash could revive the Harmony Toolkit...

This looks like a nice stuff to breathe.

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington State University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union.

One of the most dramatic features in our global mantle shear-wave attenuation model is a very low-Q anomaly at the top of the lower mantle beneath eastern Asia. We believe that this is due to water that has been pumped into the lower mantle via the long history of the subduction of oceanic lithosphere in this region. This could result from the dehydration of hydrous phase D from cold lithosphere that has been subducted into the lower mantle. We are very interested in further pursuing the effects of water on seismic attenuation within the mantle. [Lawrence and Wysession, 2006a,b]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington State University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union.

One of the most dramatic features in our global mantle shear-wave attenuation model is a very low-Q anomaly at the top of the lower mantle beneath eastern Asia. We believe that this is due to water that has been pumped into the lower mantle via the long history of the subduction of oceanic lithosphere in this region. This could result from the dehydration of hydrous phase D from cold lithosphere that has been subducted into the lower mantle. We are very interested in further pursuing the effects of water on seismic attenuation within the mantle. [Lawrence and Wysession, 2006a,b]

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington State University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union.

One of the most dramatic features in our global mantle shear-wave attenuation model is a very low-Q anomaly at the top of the lower mantle beneath eastern Asia. We believe that this is due to water that has been pumped into the lower mantle via the long history of the subduction of oceanic lithosphere in this region. This could result from the dehydration of hydrous phase D from cold lithosphere that has been subducted into the lower mantle. We are very interested in further pursuing the effects of water on seismic attenuation within the mantle. [Lawrence and Wysession, 2006a,b]

The article says: "The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington State University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student .."

I think that should be Washington University in St. Louis, not Washington State University in Pullman.

Minor correction to the article: Washington University is in St. Louis, Missouri. Washington State University is in Pullman, Washington.

You are talking mostly bollocks, probably because you don't program using the Windows API

Anyway, PThreads is better. The reason is that Win32 gives you a fixed set of synchronization primitives. If you can solve your problem with those primitives. they work great. If you can't, you are completely stuck.

And PThreads also gives you a fixed set of primitives. In some respects they are more powerful, in others they are weaker. This is a bullshit strawman.

For example, it used to be that a socket handle was not a synchronization object, so you couldn't integrate select() calls with other synchronization primitives.

WTF?

1. select() has nothing to do with synchronization. Although it does have something to do with scheduling.
2. select() can't wait on "synchronization primitives" under *nix. Really. Try man select . It works with FDs, only.
3. select() is not a core function of the Windows API. It is part of Winsock, which uses lower level scheduling primitives.
4. Finally, if you want to do asynchronous development with Windows you use Async IO, not select. Async IO is built on top of Events, which are synchronization primitives.

That brings me to the next point: in Unix there is no wait to wait on multiple synchronization primitives (as opposed to FDs) at once, and only a few primitives support a timed wait. In Windows you have WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. Look it up.

Let me be clear on the difference: in Windows the scheduler API for waiting on IO and synchronization primitives is fully integrated - you can wait on any combination of IO and sync objects in the same Wait call. You must of course be using Windows Async IO which uses Events rather than FDs as the waitable object. Under *nix you can wait for multiple condition variables, or multiple file descriptors, or a single mutex / thread / process. There is no way to link an FD to a condition variable.

PThreads gives you condition variables. They are harder to program, but once you understand them, you can use them to synchronize on absolutely anything. You aren't dependent on the OS to have foreseen your special needs and provided special synchronization primitives to meet them.

In Windows you have Mutexes, Events and Semaphores. Events alone are sufficient to provide almost identical functionality to condition variables. You may have missed that memo.

I say "almost identical" because the underlying scheduler behaviour is slightly different, which makes it very difficult to perfectly emulate Pthreads on Win32. Read Strategies for Implementing POSIX Condition Variables on Win32.

If you really want the Win32 model, it is easy enough to build it on top of PThreads, but there is no way to build PThreads on top of Win32.

Cough. Bullshit. Cough. Read Porting of Win32 API WaitFor to Solaris Platform to get a clue. It is possible to build Pthreads on top of Win32, and vice versa. Neither emulation is particularly efficient though.

The complaint about lost signals in PThreads means that the author is using them incorrectly.

The complaint about weakness in the Win32 scheduling API means that the author is using it incorrectly.

I also work in a lab (and my boss is the one who got a Lombard Powerbook for me, and I haven't looked back since) and we're almost all Mac. There are a few exceptions (our ancient Bio-Rad confocal microscope, and an imaging system tied to an electron microscope, and one machine that runs MetaMorph) but we love our Macs. I plan to get an Intel Macbook Pro when the next revision comes out, now that Photoshop CS3 is out -- I'm sick of Photoshop throwing up a slow progress bar instead of just doing the free transform I asked for.

Our site (which I built in Dreamweaver with some hand-made tweaks) runs on a Mac Mini running Apache and CGI. (It's all there, but has to be enabled as Apple by default doesn't enable dynamic pages).

Our PI uses Keynote for his presentations, too.

Now if only our quote from JEOL for a new TEM didn't include a Windows machine... (and I highly doubt that they have any that run on the Mac platform instead ... sigh.) At least I hope I can avoid having to use the ugly Ulead PhotoImpact they include with the system, and install Photoshop instead.

Mark's talents are his ability to lead, persuade, and make things happen. His first entrepreneurial adventure began during his teenage years as the sole-proprietor of a lawn care service. He partnered with Mays on an IT service based start-up while at Washington University, but pulled the plug in the late planning stage. His previous industry experience is not limited to business development at a top tier management consulting firm.

Mark's talents are his ability to lead, persuade, and make things happen. His first entrepreneurial adventure began during his teenage years as the sole-proprietor of a lawn care service. He partnered with Mays on an IT service based start-up while at Washington University, but pulled the plug in the late planning stage. His previous industry experience is not limited to business development at a top tier management consulting firm.

Because gravity also propagates at the speed of light.
Wrong.
The speed of gravity hasn't been measured yet, so it is still in dispute.
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/SpeedofGravity. html

If you ask me, the speed of gravity is far higher than the speed of light.
Also, black holes are really MECO's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eterna lly_collapsing_object

Because gravity also propagates at the speed of light.

The real way to measure the speed of gravity is to detect and study gravitational waves. By comparing the arrival of a gravitational-wave signal with that of an electromagnetic signal from an astrophysical source, one could compare the speed of gravity to that of light to parts in 10^(17).

Because gravity also propagates at the speed of light.

The real way to measure the speed of gravity is to detect and study gravitational waves. By comparing the arrival of a gravitational-wave signal with that of an electromagnetic signal from an astrophysical source, one could compare the speed of gravity to that of light to parts in 10^(17).

Remember: sticks and stones may break your bones but feces just splatters.

The browser will not go away. It may expand to include more functionality, but it won't go away. People like "one stop shopping". It's called INTERNET Explorer for a reason.

Hyper Text - http://slashdot.org/
Gopher - gopher://seanm.ca/
WAIS - wais://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov:210//home/wais/wais-s ources/dpw?
File transfer - ftp://ftp.wustl.edu/
Telnet - telnet://locis.loc.gov/
Multimedia Streams - mms:media1csuseduusrvideodemosamplewmv

etc.

The browser handles all of these activities in a single platform (either natively or through "handlers" - plug-ins if you will). Make a new protocol for applications if you want, the browser will likely be expanded to support the protocol (first via plug-ins, later natively). As a Web surfer, I don't want to have to know which program to run in order to accomplish my task (read docs, play games, use apps, etc.). I want to run one program (my browser) and have all of that "MAGIC" take place behind the scenes.

Layne

(P.S. Sorry if some of the links don't work, I'm at work and some of them are blocked. They were all copied from pages that purported them to be working example links.)

Washington University != University of Washington

Washington University is in Saint Louis
University of Washington is in Seattle

Two separate schools.

Look at source code from the masters of programing such as ACE, TAO, and BOOST. Look at "Design Patterns" and learn to recognize where and how each would be applied. Design your own patterns that could have been used for past projects, and "design" new patterns for new projects. Get your hands dirty in learning several programming languages and learn their strengths and weaknesses and be able to choose which is best for any given project, and be able to defend that position (you may have to). Learn how to program "secure code". (Its not as easy as you might think.) Learn reverse engineering, debugging skills, and know your operating system internals.

Look at source code from the masters of programing such as ACE, TAO, and BOOST. Look at "Design Patterns" and learn to recognize where and how each would be applied. Design your own patterns that could have been used for past projects, and "design" new patterns for new projects. Get your hands dirty in learning several programming languages and learn their strengths and weaknesses and be able to choose which is best for any given project, and be able to defend that position (you may have to). Learn how to program "secure code". (Its not as easy as you might think.) Learn reverse engineering, debugging skills, and know your operating system internals.

• EEG - Electro-Encephalograph - Biggest advantage is that anyone can use it, as it can be worn like a helmet or a headband. Though because it is non-invasive, it has extremely poor resolution
• ECoG - Electro-Cortocography - Though it needs to be implanted inside the skull, it produces fairly good resolution. Also, because it only sits on top of the brain as opposed to inside gray matter, it has much less of a chance to form scar-tissue (though still greater than zero). Tough to get more than one dimension of control.
• Single Receptor - A microscopic electrode is placed directly in contact with a specific neuron or group of neurons. This allows researchers to directly measure the potential of one neuron firing. Of course, this requires the electrode to be implanted. This form of BCI is also very prone to scar-tissue buildup, causing the signal to become weaker and possibly lost as the body reacts to a foreign object in the brain.
• Light Reactive Imaging - Still very theoretical - A laser is trained on a single neuron and its reflectance is picked up by a separate sensor. When the neuron fires, the laser light pattern and wavelengths that are reflected change slightly. This allows researchers to monitor a single neuron while leaving the tissue "untouched", negating the issue of scar-tissue buildup. However, this technology is not able to penetrate the skull yet, as would be needed for external/non-invasive BCI

You make an important point, though it seems that the example you give assumes that each voter must rank all of the candidates. IRV supports the option that you don't vote at all for the candidates you don't want. Also there are two kinds of monoticity:

"Monotonicity" may sound intimidating, but it is not a big deal. The term actually has several definitions. Pairwise voting methods are monotonic with respect to swapped pairs. This means that, on a ballot marked "Anderson,Reagan,Carter", if you swap Reagan and Carter so the ballot reads "Anderson,Carter,Reagan", the voting method ensures that Carter will not lose if he were already the winner, and Reagan will not win if he were a loser. IRV does not satisfy this, because this may cause Reagan to be eliminated, and the next choices of Reagan's voters could cause someone other than Carter to win. IRV is monotonic with respect to added rankings. If you add a ranking to the end of the list on your ballot, or you add a ballot with a single ranking, it will always help that candidate win, and never hurt any higher-ranked candidates. Pairwise methods do not satisfy this, as demonstrated in a previous answer. The fact that each of these voting methods satisfies one type of monotonicity and not the other is just another reflection of the tradeoff between compromising and gambling on a higher payoff that is inherent to all voting methods.

A previous Tanenbaum's paper about RFID virus: http://www.rfidvirus.org/papers/percom.06.pdf (also check the main site)
And a good presentation of RFID and its security: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-06/ftp/rfid/i ndex.html

He's probably smoking some of the numerous benchmarks on Linux systems demonstrating that hardware RAID from vendors like 3ware perform similarly to plain SATA controllers with a software RAID configuration. Most of the free ones online are a little old, but ten seconds with google gives me this cheap-ass solution for a start). It's true that you can choose to spend enough to buy a controller that does perform better, but they're incredibly costly. For all but front-line high-performance computing machines or similarly demanding tasks where every CPU cycle matters, software RAID is a good choice. I support several small shops whose IT budgets are such that a RAID configuration for their intranet servers isn't really justified. With software RAID they can have good performance as well as reliability on any Linux system, practically for free. The code is quite mature and flexible (the latest revision of it, which I plan to test next quarter, now supports hot array re-shaping) and well supported on many hardware platforms.

You're correct that a battery backed cache makes a real difference in write atomicity, and I suppose technically I agree that the cheaper controllers aren't worth anything... but only because there are nearly-free alternatives that are just as good for all but really specialized purposes.

Washington University in St. Louis, my overpriced private school, recently pulled the same bullshit. They surveyed the student body and, despite our requests, ended up going with Ruckus.

Ruckus is Windows-only (despite a significant Mac base at my school) and only provides DRM-protected Windows Media downloads. Burning isn't free. You can't use it with an iPod, of course. To make matters worse, the software creates pop-up ads while the software is open.

Something dirty is happening behind the scenes in these Ruckus deals. Student's DON'T WANT IT. It's NOT USEFUL.

Thanks to Moore's law embedded systems have grown up enough to use CORBA. I know this because I work on a project which uses CORBA heavily (at least in the TAO and JacORB incarnations). Since CORBA has strong typing, it is attractive to developers who depend heavily on typeness to provide checks in systems where no one likes bugs. And really, who wants to write another middleware to deal with distributed systems? I sure don't.

There is no disclaimer in the article so I think it is worth mentioning that even though Michi was CORBA for all intents and purposes for a number of years, his current employer provides a competitor to CORBA and Web Services. And, you guessed it, that product addresses each and every flaw he outlines in his article.

To be fair ZeroC and Michi do put their money where their mouth is by supplying Ice in source form, licensed under the GPL. Although I do not see them putting this in front of a body like the IETF or trying to get Ice bindings integrated into something like boost. This would really attack that one point in the article talking about having real systems implemented and having it in front of a standards body.

Now that I have put in the proper disclaimers, I have to say that having used CORBA the last 5 years I agree with Michi on every point. Our knowledge of POAs is just now getting to the point where we are comfortable using it in complex ways. We are only now willing to entertain the notion that we are actually using CORBA the right way. We have spent weeks reading, coding, recoding, testing and testing again to understand the spec and the real world usage. The learning curve is easily the steepest and tallest of any technology I have had to learn. I said "Amen" out loud when Michi mentions that people really screw up when they don't do it right.

Using CORBA as a real distributed object system is not possible unless the system is in a network that you have complete control over. Even now we use cumbersome workarounds to develop our system remotely because we can't use CORBA like we were supposed to. Thank you very little script kiddies for making us use firewalls every where! But if CORBA had been built with security in mind in the beginning at all, it would be vastly more useful then it is now.

And we have not moved on to things like Web Services precisely because we do not want to move away from type checking and we can see the train wreck associated to security. So we use CORBA the best we can (and we have been largely successful, BTW).

Now I am going back to checking whether try blocks have been done properly for the naming service code we have to implement because of the exact reasons Michi says most implementers need the CORBA naming service.

One of the problems with SOAP and WSDL is that the standard is incompletely specified. Try connecting .NET with, say, BEA's autogenerated WSDL. An element such as:

<xsd:element type="xsd:int" name="myInt" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"></xsd:element>

is perfectly legal WSDL. But BEA sends this as an empty element if there is no data which will generate a null exception on the .NET side since MS insists on trying to instantiate a primative but has no data to use.

CORBA seems complex in many ways because the OMG went to great lengths to make their specifications complete enough to avoid this type of problem.

On another note, much as I respect Michi Henning, there are definitely well designed and very solid CORBA ORB and service implementations that have made it fairly easy to build C++ CORBA objects. And they are open source, to boot. Just because IONA failed so miserably (their marketing folks were real dicks), does not mean that others didn't do it correctly.

What planet have you been on? I'm actually an MS fan, but in this case, I have to say that you've missed the boat. CORBA and COM have little to do with one another. One is limited to a single machine (COM). The other is a distributed communications technology (CORBA). True, Microsoft has a distributed version of COM (DCOM), but it's nearly impossible to deploy unless you've got a rocket-science-equivalent degree in Windows security permissions. You say "MS saw a need, designed something to fill that need, tweaked it until it worked, then released it." Yes, they did. And DCOM stank to high heaven. Even Microsoft doesn't talk about it anymore.

CORBA, on the other hand, is heavily used in telecom, aerospace, financial, and high-performance, realtime scientific and control applications. Check out Doug Schmidt's TAO if you want to see what complete free, open-source CORBA can do. And stop bothering us with MS's abortive attempt at the same.

Your vote is useless because everyone else ends up voting for the person out of two they hate the least.

It's difficult to exaggerate the response her ideas provoked in the Republican Party.

Microsoft was found, as a conclusion of law, to have violated U.S.C 15 Sect. 2. The relevant quote from that link:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED, that Microsoft has violated [...]2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sect.[...]2

Here is the full text of section 2:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Now, it may be that having the case brought as a "Civil Action" makes my use of the word "criminal" incorrect. It also occurs to me that there's a legal distinction between the men who direct a company and the company itself. So, to that extent, I'll retract my statement, apologize and confess to ignorance.

Somehow, replacing ~MS management~ with ~the company MS management direct~, and ~convicted criminal~ with ~convicted of felony conduct~, just doesn't seem to make any real difference in meaning. But I do thank you. In future conversation I'll use the excruciatingly correct terminology.

So, to repeat: to whatever extent my post based on that information constitutes ignorance, or groupthink, I apologize.

This reminds me of the unexpected patterns of Taylor-Couette instability that develop in the fluid between two rotating co-axial cylinders. Such patterns are similar to the bands on Jupiter.

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6885.h tml

http://eastcoastconditionzero.xgs-rules.com/themes /bismarck/playerstat.php?playerID=%5B%7C%3DN1CF%3D %7C%5Dkilljoe%3CMJR%3E&config=cfg-default.php

Where's your link about democrats and education?

And, why are you picking on me (and looking like an idiot... it's not working)? Again, I've done none of the things that you seem to claim.

Your cool little term seemed to be a hit with everyone here:
http://www.brainshrub.com/canadian-comment-invade- iran

Aside from the issues already mentioned (type-setting quality and the lyx GUI), there are quite a number of reasons why LaTeX might be preferable for many people currently using WYSIWYG word processors...

• EEG - Electro-Encephalograph - Biggest advantage is that anyone can use it, as it can be worn like a helmet or a headband. Though because it is non-invasive, it has extremely poor resolution
• ECoG - Electro-Cortocography - Though it needs to be implanted inside the skull, it produces fairly good resolution. Also, because it only sits on top of the brain as opposed to inside gray matter, it has much less of a chance to form scar-tissue (though still greater than zero). Tough to get more than one dimension of control.
• Single Receptor - A microscopic electrode is placed directly in contact with a specific neuron or group of neurons. This allows researchers to directly measure the potential of one neuron firing. Of course, this requires the electrode to be implanted. This form of BCI is also very prone to scar-tissue buildup, causing the signal to become weaker and possibly lost as the body reacts to a foreign object in the brain.
• Light Reactive Imaging - Still very theoretical - A laser is trained on a single neuron and its reflectance is picked up by a separate sensor. When the neuron fires, the laser light pattern and wavelengths that are reflected change slightly. This allows researchers to monitor a single neuron while leaving the tissue "untouched", negating the issue of scar-tissue buildup. However, this technology is not able to penetrate the skull yet, as would be needed for external/non-invasive BCI

That's partly because what we tend to think of as Supercomputer-class problems are floating point based, and partly because with modern machines the integer unit is already screamingly fast, so it's not much of an issue. More subtly, while searching algorithms can be parcelled out in a loosely-parallel (or embarrassingly parallel) manner (i.e. if you have 100 processors, break your database into 100 subsets, and search each subset on its own processor), most of the floating-point heavy algorithms are also tightly coupled, and rely upon efficient inter-processor communication, good cache latency, and generally are overall more sensitve to machine design.

This is why your have theoretical peak performance, and then production codes that only reach a fraction of it.

If you're interested in some of the issues in bioinformatics searching, there are worse places to start than the page at Washington University, St. Louis, http://blast.wustl.edu/blast/TO-FLY.html/

What about the legal battle between MLB and the fantasy baseball leaguess over the right to use real rosters and real stats?
How many hits and misses a player makes is a fact, but the MLB claims it owns those stats and the right to license who uses them.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6507.h tml

that should be left visual field not left eye. See here for why this is so. The short version is that a single eye is connected to both hemispheres of the brain. But anything viewed to the left of center of vision will be sent only to the right hemisphere and anything viewed to the right of center will be sent to the left hemisphere.
You know, that's one of those things that always confused me. In the older psychology books, they state that it's per eye and have tests to prove it. Now, they state visual fields and have tests to prove it. Were the earlier tests incorrectly done? Or has the field of psychology affected how it all works? I could see early research subjects "knowing" how the model worked so that they blocked out out the right visual field of their left eye when the right eye was covered. *shrug* It just always struck me as kind of funny.

Simply beautiful. Your post is the reason I just registered a Slashdot account after years of reading anoymously.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this article I've written on the subject, if you're so inclined.

You need to look into ACE. ACE is a set of middleware libraries that were designed for precisely the purpose you describe - high-performance, mission-critical systems. Doug Schmidt, the guy behind ACE, has written numerous papers on the usses surrounding such systems, which are also available on that site. He was the first to document a number of important patterns in high-performance netwrked systems, like Reactor, Proactor, and Futures. He's also written books, including books of patterns for distributed reliable systems.

From that site you can also find TAO, a free CORBA framework based on ACE. TAO is the test bed and driving force behind the CORBA realtime spec, which is a version of CORBA for realtime systems which demand high and deterministic performance. I believe TAO includes services supporting failover and other reliablity strategies.

ACE and TAO aren't just research software. They are used in mission-critical systems by major defense and aerospace contractors. I work at one such.

Sorry to sound ilke a shill. I'm not paid by them or anything; I'm just a programmer who uses ACE for his job and has been favorably impressed with it.

I would honestly recommended ACE and TAO frameworks for all kinds of C++ projects. I'm not salesman and it's free software, just (from my 15 years with C++) this IS my software of choice. Start it here http://deuce.doc.wustl.edu/Download.html/ or Google for ACE+TAO

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.

From the overview:

The ADAPTIVE Communication Environment (ACE) is a freely available, open-source object-oriented (OO) framework that implements many core patterns for concurrent communication software. ACE provides a rich set of reusable C++ wrapper facades and framework components that perform common communication software tasks across a range of OS platforms. The communication software tasks provided by ACE include event demultiplexing and event handler dispatching, signal handling, service initialization, interprocess communication, shared memory management, message routing, dynamic (re)configuration of distributed services, concurrent execution and synchronization.