And if you wish to continue believe that Enterprise Java is 'built around' a database interface that owes nothing to ODBC in its concepts and design, you should likewise feel free. I didn't think that was either of our positions, but reality shouldn't stand in the way of your believing you've won an argument.
Yes, COM was used in pre-.NET languages. That has no bearing on the present.NET infrastructure.
No bearing, huh?
Well, thanks for your in-depth analysis of what the difference in the object-based interoperability and library model is. What a dull discussion this would have been if the crux of your argument was 'they have different names'.
If you look at how COM is actually implemented under the hood, it is very C++-like
Yes, it's like Objective C or C++ with multiple inheritance, but:
1) it is not like C (the predecessor, RPC with an unextended C-based IDL, is precisely what this is not - there is object identity here);
2) it was not exclusively, or even initially, for C-like languages;
3) it does not require multiple inheritance (which is 'coincidentally' what Java also claimed credit for some time later).
Some languages had such limited type systems that Microsoft went and intented the "automation" subset (using the OLEAUTOMATION attribute in IDL). This would limit you to the types that a VARIANT could hold
Actually - drifting off point again - Visual Basic (and more importantly VBA) does have a core system of strong types, but it also allows dynamic typing... something that Java also has!
You can't look at all of that and say Microsoft planned it all from the beginning. IDispatch, OLEAUTOMATION, and everything?
Have a look at the YAWL project of the Business Process Modelling Group at the Queensland University of Technology.
Despite the title, he doesn't seem to really be talking about workflow patterns, but about common UI idioms that fit into a workflow-driven app (though some of these may be associated with data/resource patterns).
pure.NET doesn't use COM or DCOM at all. The core of.NET is the CLR, which is Microsoft's answer to the Java VM. By design, it supports mutliple languages (C#, VB.NET, J#,...).
As I said on another branch,.NET might separate the full and developed capabilities as COM+, a heavier-weight library, but if you want to know how the multi-language interoperability is based around the COM approach, you had only to look at their 'first cut' (before having to design a separate wholly non-Java language) in Visual J++. This is how interoperability, and the provision of libraries, across languages, and with an object-based interface, is achieved in.NET.
Now we're really off at a tangent I've no interest in pursuing (these are arguments for 1997, not 2006), but to set the record straight
DCOM: Windows only
DCOM is not Windows only, there was a Linux and Unix implementation even back in the 90s.
COM is rebranded OLE
COM was not rebranded as OLE, they were released at the same time, OLE implemented over COM - see Brockschmidt's book (from which I was inseparable in 95). You're perhaps confusing that OLE Controls were rebranded ActiveX Controls, and the OLE documents/Office stuff as ActiveX Documents.
So, yes, I watched as VBX was replaced with ActiveX
Actually it wasn't. Since you're being picky about names, I thought you would have pointed out that OLE controls replaced VBX and that ActiveX was a rebranding. Not so important in itself but...
I was there when ADO was first released. But you are wrong about how that came about. ADO is not a wrapper for ODBC. ADO is built on top of OLEDB
OK, you're right about ADO being the interface to OLEDB, but again I was simplifying and skipping generations. Jet was wrapped in DAO, ODBC was wrapped in RDO and then ADO was a simplification, the underlying layers were 'thinned' (with ODBC being just one option - but the one everyone used for years!) and the object interface was rationalised. Still, if we stop with the willy-waving and look at the actual point I was making, I don't see how you contradicted it. Somehow there seems to be an inability here to distinguish between evolution of pre-existing, pre-Java (and, dare I say, innovative) technologies, and exact code bases/interfaces.
And yes, I do remember when they came out with Visual J++, but I can't say I've ever had the displeasure of using it.
Then maybe, like that troll CyricZ whom I refuse to address directly, you're missing the point - that a common object-based interface between heterogenous languages (not just C/C++, which skraps also seems to be missing) already existed and was applied to Java in J++, showing what Microsoft's inclusive vision for a Java like language was back in 97 (I think it was - that's when I used it). Not only does this strategy form the basis for interoperability in.Net (whether it's based on the COM/COM+ libraries, or slimmed down and more efficient), but it also allowed the provision of libraries like ADO and ActiveX controls, which were summarily ripped off in an non-inclusive language-specific way in Sun's Java.
You were there when COM was originally released? You were there when VBX was replaced with ActiveX? You were there when ODBC was wrapped in an ActiveX interface forming ADO? You were there when COM was the means of interfacing with Visual J++? You were programming Visual J++ when Sun started legal challenges eventually leading to.Net? You've been programming Microsoft more than a few months?... seems not! Thanks for the lecture though.
That's kinda funny, 'cause here I was thinking that.NET (which is only a couple of years old) was the alternative to Java (which is 10+ years old).
Come off it, look at the core.Net technologies (before they were re-branded): COM (implementing the multiple interfaces per object idea without multiple inheritance) predates Java, ODBC predates JDBC etc. etc.
Apart from a bit of research on his site, all the **BB controversy did for me is to adjust my naive use of the submitter URL (i.e. to submit as 'Barry Norton' rather than 'Barry Norton' and use the URL of my homepage at my new institution, which I had the vague desire to increase in the Google rank over my old one). Your original justification of links as a submitter perk is a little at odds though with wanting to supress the discussion as it's only link spammers, and their enemies, who spend much time thinking about these things. I do agree though, a lot of our discussion has been off-topic, but that's why I'm pleased about this thread and hope you will, as promised, have more such meta-discussion in future.
Go to "edit wishlist" and the second item after you name the list is "This list will be viweable by:"
You can name the list?.. I think things have changed since I looked at this feature, when it was introduced, and decided I wouldn't use it for anything important. Doesn't this make the whole article a nonsense though?!
I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since: a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust; b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.
Vinyl LPs are not dead as a doornail [...] And by the way, it was 78 RPM was the standard, not 70.
You and the parent are both missing a more subtle point (probably not intended by the OP who got the speed wrong) - 78s were, in all but a few cases, not vinyl.
In fact, the LP versus 78 (vinyl versus shellac) debate was definitely won by vinyl (which I agree isn't dead - I still it).
For all the major network content you will have to be online, logged in, using google's player, and running windows.
Except if Sony add a player compatible with this - although they've been trying to promote UMD, ultimately the iTunes video thing must be making them sit up. Indeed, the recent inclusion of a LocationFree video player suggests they are looking in this direction. As far as having to be online (with both of these), that's fine with me - right now (as so often) I'm sitting in a hotel with free wireless, but with very poor television and very expensive movies...
Since the summary doesn't even give the chap's full name, let alone any kind of non-technical biographical information, the following might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
Jonathan Ive was apparently "born in London and studied art and design at Newcastle Polytechnic before setting up his own design house, Tangerine, where he designed everything from hair combs and ceramics, to power tools and televisions. Apple was one of his clients, and was so impressed with his work for them that in 1992 they offered him a job in their Cupertino headquarters to turn around their ailing design division."
I'd assumed that the whole point in having a chip in the card was that the PIN and purchase details would go in, and some sort of transmissable acknowledgement/authorisation would be provided back out (probably with a signed version of the purchase information) for transmission, from which neither the PIN could be extracted (because it wouldn't be contained) nor another purchase or alteration spoofed (because only the authorised transaction would be signed).
Just supposition, but that's how I'd design it as a naive first stab...
No, he won and then accepted a settlement. From TFA: "Roberts took the company to court in October and won, with damages to be decided at a hearing on 4 January 2006. Just prior to Xmas, however, the company offered £300 as a final settlement which Mr Roberts agreed to."
You know what? Waste your mod points on this because I have no problem wasting my karma on it - this article is an insult to the readers. Get a life...
Slashdot Mirror
And if you wish to continue believe that Enterprise Java is 'built around' a database interface that owes nothing to ODBC in its concepts and design, you should likewise feel free. I didn't think that was either of our positions, but reality shouldn't stand in the way of your believing you've won an argument.
Well, thanks for your in-depth analysis of what the difference in the object-based interoperability and library model is. What a dull discussion this would have been if the crux of your argument was 'they have different names'.
Good night...
1) it is not like C (the predecessor, RPC with an unextended C-based IDL, is precisely what this is not - there is object identity here);
2) it was not exclusively, or even initially, for C-like languages;
3) it does not require multiple inheritance (which is 'coincidentally' what Java also claimed credit for some time later).
Actually - drifting off point again - Visual Basic (and more importantly VBA) does have a core system of strong types, but it also allows dynamic typing... something that Java also has! Read Brockschmidt...You were there when COM was originally released? You were there when VBX was replaced with ActiveX? You were there when ODBC was wrapped in an ActiveX interface forming ADO? You were there when COM was the means of interfacing with Visual J++? You were programming Visual J++ when Sun started legal challenges eventually leading to .Net? You've been programming Microsoft more than a few months?... seems not! Thanks for the lecture though.
Apart from a bit of research on his site, all the **BB controversy did for me is to adjust my naive use of the submitter URL (i.e. to submit as 'Barry Norton' rather than 'Barry Norton' and use the URL of my homepage at my new institution, which I had the vague desire to increase in the Google rank over my old one). Your original justification of links as a submitter perk is a little at odds though with wanting to supress the discussion as it's only link spammers, and their enemies, who spend much time thinking about these things. I do agree though, a lot of our discussion has been off-topic, but that's why I'm pleased about this thread and hope you will, as promised, have more such meta-discussion in future.
This is a great idea - one look at Beatles Beatles summary page shows just how little he's contributed to the site outside his link spamming.
I've always wondered why Amazon didn't take a more 'social networking' approach to this since:
a) I only want to share my wish list with people I trust;
b) I only want to share certain sublists with certain people.
In fact, the LP versus 78 (vinyl versus shellac) debate was definitely won by vinyl (which I agree isn't dead - I still it).
Glad to see that, according to the BBC, unlike Apple, they're tackling both iPod Video and Sony PSP as mobile devices.
Touch off-topic - he hasn't been knighted (yet - cf. TBL) and he's certainly not a peer.
Since the summary doesn't even give the chap's full name, let alone any kind of non-technical biographical information, the following might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
Jonathan Ive was apparently "born in London and studied art and design at Newcastle Polytechnic before setting up his own design house, Tangerine, where he designed everything from hair combs and ceramics, to power tools and televisions. Apple was one of his clients, and was so impressed with his work for them that in 1992 they offered him a job in their Cupertino headquarters to turn around their ailing design division."
Just supposition, but that's how I'd design it as a naive first stab...
In TFA - you and the parent are both wrong.
No, he won and then accepted a settlement. From TFA: "Roberts took the company to court in October and won, with damages to be decided at a hearing on 4 January 2006. Just prior to Xmas, however, the company offered £300 as a final settlement which Mr Roberts agreed to."
By just advertising you mean vapourware? It is! Access the site via http://www.allpeers.com/index_f.htm
You know what? Waste your mod points on this because I have no problem wasting my karma on it - this article is an insult to the readers. Get a life...
Fucking clown shoes!
Stop wasting our time...