[Info-vax] Reinventing VMS logical names (Fuchsia & Win NT)

[Dan Cross]

In article <uj5en8$2b2rf$1 at dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>In article <3c044c90-ddb9-40ea-9e12-7c71279cd547n at googlegroups.com>,
>Jake Hamby (Solid State Jake) <jake.hamby at gmail.com> wrote:
>  On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-8, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> DEC did a whole lot of work on DCE.
>>>
>>> OpenVMS itself never particularly incorporated DCE within, but DCE was
>>> what DEC was both pushing internally and externally back at the time.
>>>
>>> Microsoft picked up DCE and ran with it, via the related COM/DCOM/OLE
>>> stuff, and all of what was built upon that.
>
>> DCE was a nice idea but it really lost out in the court of
>> public opinion for being expensive, promoted by "dinosaur"
>> companies, and not being OO, in contrast to CORBA, which had
>> its own problems, but was popular enough to get incorporated
>> into the standard Java libraries until it was finally only
>> recently dropped.
>
>Is DCE RPC less OO than CORBA?
>
>DCE RPC use IDL. And it seems perfectly OO to me. A client can
>be written in C but so can clients for CORBA. Just cumbersome.

Sun ONC RPC uses an IDL too.  Would you call that "Object
Oriented"?  If so, what does that term even mean?

>Clean (as in "out of the box from OSF") DCE RPC may never have caught
>on, but DCOM that is based on DCE RPC is on every Windows system
>out there.

The RPC protocol was just one component of DCE.  There was also
the time service, authentication service, name service, and
filesystem.  It really seemed like more of a response to the
combination of Sun's NIS/NFS+Transarc/IBM's AFS than anything.

	- Dan C.