On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 14:12 -0800, ron minnich wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM, David Leimbach <leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > They solve the same class of problems, if you step back far enough. > > If your application's mechanism of dealing with processing is to use the > > namespace, then binding new functionality over old is roughly equivalent to > > a plugin mechanism. > > > I hate to be the one to bring this up but ... if you are providing > some extended (e.g.) math functionality to a program with a shared > library, people are going to be upset with you if you argue that it > can be done with RPC. > > I hope the reason is obvious :-)
It is. It is a trivial case, after all. In non-trivial ones, the same kind of discussion used to be quite popular in OpenMP vs. MPI circles. And I shouldn't be the one to tell you where it is going, right? Thanks, Roman.
