[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Distributed objects vs. generic functions and multi-methods
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:12:14 +0100, Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
> Java is an interesting case because the (bytecoded) code can be transmitted
> as objects. Lisps can do this with interpreted code, but current Dylan can't
> transmit code across a heterogenous network.
>
> Next's distributed Obj-C requires that you have the code already on each
> machine, so Dylan doesn't really lose out by requiring "manual" distribution
> of code, and its separation of methods from classes actually makes pure data
> objects a natural choice of entity to send over the network.
CORBA's Objects-by-Value also assumes the implementation is available locally
for languages that aren't Java.
> > In Lisp or Dylan, it's not obvious to me what to "distribute"...
> > It's not enough to say "oh, just lose the multi-method part and
> > only dispatch on the first argument", because these languages
> > still don't provide a formal way of grouping all the related GFs
> > into a single first-class "protocol".
>
> OK, I'm ignorant here. :-) Why would multi-methods get lost in a distributed
> system? Why do we need a "protocol"?
I think the question is: But to which server do you send the gf call, Dear
Liza, Dear Liza?
FTR, the Fun'Dev CORBA implementation sends the operation call to the server
associated with the first object reference, as you might expect.
__Jason
Follow-Ups:
References: