Windows NT/2000/XP services ? - Programmer

This is a discussion on Windows NT/2000/XP services ? - Programmer ; The following article says "DCOM uses an implementation of distributed computing environment (DCE) RPC." It does not say anything about use of UDP. If DCOM uses UDP then that would sure be worth knowing about; is there another article that ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

  1. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    The following article says "DCOM uses an implementation of distributed
    computing environment (DCE) RPC." It does not say anything about use of UDP.
    If DCOM uses UDP then that would sure be worth knowing about; is there
    another article that describes use of UDP by DCOM?

    Building COM Components on UNIX
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dn_unixcom.asp


    "Arkady Frenkel" wrote in message
    news:ua7iH%23b2DHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > DCOM use UDP with known ( defined ) message format ( the first bytes are
    > MEOW word ( a cat was near MS guys when they thought about format

    IMHO ).



  2. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    The layering is:
    DCOM over RPC over
    some RPC transports suitable for DCOM (some have been discontinued along the
    way)
    are ncacn_ip_tcp, ncacn_np, ncalrpc, ncadg_ip_udp
    The "network" protocol for the tcp family is DCE with the appropriate
    payload
    in the PDU_REQUEST/RESPONSE (after the presentiation context and transfer
    syntax
    have been negotiated the DCE way).

    --
    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Use of any included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
    http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm


    "Sam Hobbs" wrote in message
    news:uuQ4ive2DHA.2620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > The following article says "DCOM uses an implementation of distributed
    > computing environment (DCE) RPC." It does not say anything about use of

    UDP.
    > If DCOM uses UDP then that would sure be worth knowing about; is there
    > another article that describes use of UDP by DCOM?
    >
    > Building COM Components on UNIX
    >

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...dn_unixcom.asp
    >
    >
    > "Arkady Frenkel" wrote in message
    > news:ua7iH%23b2DHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > > DCOM use UDP with known ( defined ) message format ( the first bytes are
    > > MEOW word ( a cat was near MS guys when they thought about format

    > IMHO ).
    >
    >




  3. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:19:57 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
    wrote:



    >
    >Yes, a DOS TSR is very primitive, just as DOS is primitive. DOS TSRs are a
    >bad example but the important thing is to make it clear that "First we had
    >components... and now services." is the result of a huge misunderstanding.
    >Unless I misunderstand what is meant by "components", the valididty of that
    >statement is so far from the truth that it must be corrected.


    Agreed

  4. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    I don't see DOS as totally primitavely as some do. DOS (Be it the Disk
    Access System, or MS-DOS or any flavor of the sort) are solid, proven
    methods of navigating. Even the 'nix clients use a command prompt.

    Now, before anyone goes up rear about my ignorance, or whatever, GUI of any
    flavour is definately superior in the mannor of being able to display
    information in a more pleasing way, but, I can't count how many times I've
    had to rely on DOS to fix something that the GUI just couldn't do?

    Programatically, we've got things pretty good in the world of GUI, and
    objects, and all that wonderful stuff. Back in my TP7 days, woulda loved to
    be able to implement displaying a button without having to draw it, watch
    for a click on that button, worry about redrawing the mouse every time it
    moves, redraw a the button on a click, WATCH for the click, so on and so on.
    Now? Two clicks, one double-click, and voila, we've got it made.

    "J French" wrote in message
    news:4004f7ab.84615809@news.btclick.com...
    > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:19:57 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Yes, a DOS TSR is very primitive, just as DOS is primitive. DOS TSRs are

    a
    > >bad example but the important thing is to make it clear that "First we

    had
    > >components... and now services." is the result of a huge

    misunderstanding.
    > >Unless I misunderstand what is meant by "components", the valididty of

    that
    > >statement is so far from the truth that it must be corrected.

    >
    > Agreed




  5. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    You only talk about the UI. We were talking about the insides. Most
    programmers that do most of their work with the internal complexities don't
    care much about the UI. We often prefer to just do a simple command-line
    interface instead of all that UI stuff. A UI often takes time but is not
    much of a challenge.

    The good stuff that DOS lacks is processes, events, semaphores, threads,
    memory management, dynamic linking, timer/timing services, installable file
    systems (not just a FAT one) and many other things that use those things.
    DOS provides very little device independence, such as what a printer device
    driver provides. One advantage of a GUI is that it can (and does) even
    support a standard interface to printers for even text-only data.

    When viewing DOS the way I do, it is very primitive.


    "Stephen" wrote in message
    news:101qor8nb9hs33e@corp.supernews.com...
    > I don't see DOS as totally primitavely as some do. DOS (Be it the Disk
    > Access System, or MS-DOS or any flavor of the sort) are solid, proven
    > methods of navigating. Even the 'nix clients use a command prompt.
    >
    > Now, before anyone goes up rear about my ignorance, or whatever, GUI of

    any
    > flavour is definately superior in the mannor of being able to display
    > information in a more pleasing way, but, I can't count how many times I've
    > had to rely on DOS to fix something that the GUI just couldn't do?
    >
    > Programatically, we've got things pretty good in the world of GUI, and
    > objects, and all that wonderful stuff. Back in my TP7 days, woulda loved

    to
    > be able to implement displaying a button without having to draw it, watch
    > for a click on that button, worry about redrawing the mouse every time it
    > moves, redraw a the button on a click, WATCH for the click, so on and so

    on.
    > Now? Two clicks, one double-click, and voila, we've got it made.




  6. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    be careful ... DOS does not mean "command line interface (CLI)"
    CLIs are great, DOS is not.

    --
    Louis Solomon
    www.steelbytes.com

    "Stephen" wrote in message
    news:101qor8nb9hs33e@corp.supernews.com...
    >I don't see DOS as totally primitavely as some do. DOS (Be it the Disk
    > Access System, or MS-DOS or any flavor of the sort) are solid, proven
    > methods of navigating. Even the 'nix clients use a command prompt.
    >
    > Now, before anyone goes up rear about my ignorance, or whatever, GUI of
    > any
    > flavour is definately superior in the mannor of being able to display
    > information in a more pleasing way, but, I can't count how many times I've
    > had to rely on DOS to fix something that the GUI just couldn't do?
    >
    > Programatically, we've got things pretty good in the world of GUI, and
    > objects, and all that wonderful stuff. Back in my TP7 days, woulda loved
    > to
    > be able to implement displaying a button without having to draw it, watch
    > for a click on that button, worry about redrawing the mouse every time it
    > moves, redraw a the button on a click, WATCH for the click, so on and so
    > on.
    > Now? Two clicks, one double-click, and voila, we've got it made.
    >
    > "J French" wrote in message
    > news:4004f7ab.84615809@news.btclick.com...
    >> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:19:57 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Yes, a DOS TSR is very primitive, just as DOS is primitive. DOS TSRs are

    > a
    >> >bad example but the important thing is to make it clear that "First we

    > had
    >> >components... and now services." is the result of a huge

    > misunderstanding.
    >> >Unless I misunderstand what is meant by "components", the valididty of

    > that
    >> >statement is so far from the truth that it must be corrected.

    >>
    >> Agreed

    >
    >




  7. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:25:51 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
    wrote:

    >You only talk about the UI. We were talking about the insides. Most
    >programmers that do most of their work with the internal complexities don't
    >care much about the UI. We often prefer to just do a simple command-line
    >interface instead of all that UI stuff. A UI often takes time but is not
    >much of a challenge.
    >
    >The good stuff that DOS lacks is processes, events, semaphores, threads,
    >memory management, dynamic linking, timer/timing services, installable file
    >systems (not just a FAT one) and many other things that use those things.
    >DOS provides very little device independence, such as what a printer device
    >driver provides. One advantage of a GUI is that it can (and does) even
    >support a standard interface to printers for even text-only data.
    >
    >When viewing DOS the way I do, it is very primitive.


    You want to be very careful, there is a form of 'DOS' under the GUI
    stuff in Windows
    - the GUI stuff is basically a presentation layer

  8. Re: Windows NT/2000/XP services ?

    "J French" wrote in message
    news:401e0e9d.762745@news.btclick.com...
    > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 16:25:51 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
    > wrote:
    >
    > >You only talk about the UI. We were talking about the insides. Most
    > >programmers that do most of their work with the internal complexities

    don't
    > >care much about the UI. We often prefer to just do a simple command-line
    > >interface instead of all that UI stuff. A UI often takes time but is not
    > >much of a challenge.
    > >
    > >The good stuff that DOS lacks is processes, events, semaphores, threads,
    > >memory management, dynamic linking, timer/timing services, installable

    file
    > >systems (not just a FAT one) and many other things that use those things.
    > >DOS provides very little device independence, such as what a printer

    device
    > >driver provides. One advantage of a GUI is that it can (and does) even
    > >support a standard interface to printers for even text-only data.
    > >
    > >When viewing DOS the way I do, it is very primitive.

    >
    > You want to be very careful, there is a form of 'DOS' under the GUI
    > stuff in Windows
    > - the GUI stuff is basically a presentation layer


    Yes, we must be very careful about what we say. That is why I wrote my
    "Console Applications" article at:

    http://simplesamples.info/Beginners/Consoles.php



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2