<div dir="ltr"><div>If you're willing to be experimental, Qt 5.8 and 5.9 have a module called "Remote Objects". Since it's Qt I would assume it's cross platform. There's some info on the wiki (<a href="https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2015_QtRemoteObjects">https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2015_QtRemoteObjects</a>) and Qt's official docs website (<a href="http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtremoteobjects-index.html">http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtremoteobjects-index.html</a>). </div>-John </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">John Woltman TPI • 302 New Mill Lane • Exton, PA 19341 • (610) 524-7260</div></div></div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Earnie <<a href="mailto:earnie@users.sourceforge.net" target="_blank">earnie@users.sourceforge.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 6/20/2017 12:43 PM, L A Walsh wrote: > ---- > The state of the art 10-20 years ago allowed for Distributed messaging > between machines using CORBA which was preceeded by "DCE" (something still > used by Samba). A non-adopter was Microsoft which used DCOM. DCOM still > survives, but CORBA didn't seem to. It used names for applications with > with name numbers and dots in them and was arranged hierarchically. > It looks like the naming that DBUS uses is similar. CORBA used ORB > for applications or "components" to talk to each other -- either on the > same > machine or on a different one. > See more on this @ > <a href="http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/definition/CORBA" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/definition/CORBA</a> and > <a href="http://searchmicroservices.techtarget.com/definition/Object-Request-Broker-ORB" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://searchmicroservices.techtarget.com/definition/Object-Request-Broker-ORB</a> > > > Or just google for Distributed CORBA. > > Since DBUS looks very similar to what CORBA was using (I thought it > looked > familiar), I think I was expecting it was an evolution of that, but it > looks > like it was a reimplementation. > > Also looks like Microsoft, at least, agreed to a "gateway" between > CORBA and the "Component Object Model" (COM), so cross architecture > communication would be possible. > > Maybe DBUS could use a gateway approach to send inter-application > messages > across machine boundaries? > > It looks like the reliability issue was solved a decade or more ago > (looks like the docs were from 2006) I thought I remember seeing CORBA > implementations back in the 1990's... hmm. > > Maybe unix code from that project could be ported to linux...dunno. I still see CORBA being used among many vendor applications. Maybe you'd be interested in <a href="http://www.theaceorb.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theaceorb.com</a>? -- Earnie _______________________________________________ dbus mailing list <a href="mailto:dbus@lists.freedesktop.org">dbus@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dbus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dbus</a> </blockquote></div> </div>