[lsb-discuss] RFC: LSB support for RPC
robert.schweikert at abaqus.com
Thu May 31 15:47:05 PDT 2007
I cannot comment on the priorities, but to get Abaqus certified the
xdr_create_stdio interface needs to be part of the LSB.
BTW xdr_create_stdio is not in the bug report.
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> I posted on this topic a few days ago, and wanted
> to clarify what I was asking after the conf call
> The RPC interface set provides a network programming
> model that's been in use for many years. There are
> similar schemes in wide use; Microsoft software depends
> heavily on their RPC in some places. New schemes based
> on related concepts, such as xmlrpc, are coming into use.
> I don't feel it's reasonable to have a feature set in
> the LSB that isn't complete enough to use; it needs
> to be repaired, or, far less likely, removed.
> The question was really one of priorities, which I
> tried to capture in my last line of the other
> "Is it worth going in and fixing this stuff for LSB
> 3.2, or ought it to wait for LSB 4.0?"
> There's a fair bit of work to get done in the next
> two months, so I want to see if RPC programming is
> enough of a hot topic that it ought to be one of the
> targets for 3.2, or if it can wait one more cycle.
> The task is not vast, but it is big enough that it has
> potential to impact some other tasks - at biggest,
> something like 40 new interfaces, most of which are
> partly in the LSB database already, but have no reference
> documentation and no LSB tests. Some of the findings
> are now added to an old bug which proved to be very much
> a tip-of-the-iceberg thing:
> Comment #6 contains most of the missing interfaces;
> there seem to be a few more, but I don't yet have the
> short descriptions for those so they weren't added yet.
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.freestandards.org
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(Robert.Schweikert at abaqus.com) LINUX
More information about the lsb-discuss