I have been working with c#/dotnet and mono and
also the Gtk toolkit ( I have used Qt as well).
I am working on a java project at work too.

My question is: why do we need to have local
assemblies or libraries for link or run?

Can't a single 'framework server' be set up on
the Internet to sent the services of the framework?

Isn't that what RMI and 'web methods' are all about?

So why isn't System.Dll and System.Object a networked
service?

Why isn't Gtk a shared networked library?

Why aren't the java Core classes public and networked?

Why do I have to 'download and install' all these
libraries, which are the same across all these
local hard disks and therefore highly redundant.

Advantage would be that it would always be up to
date, and common across applications. Less installation.
And it would be truly, write once, run anywhere
because you would not need to have java classes,
assemblies or libraries when you build, or run.




--
There are Ogg Vorbis streams @
Virgin Radio
http://www.virginradio.co.uk/thestat...ten/index.html

It sounds great but you miss something that is obvious
and that can make things dificult and it is when your
centralized computer fail what do you do?, all apps that
depends on those, say, webservices cannot run, or they
need to find another provider, or they just have what
they need on their own machine....


daniel.

>-----Original Message-----
>
>I have been working with c#/dotnet and mono and
>also the Gtk toolkit ( I have used Qt as well).
>I am working on a java project at work too.
>
>My question is: why do we need to have local
>assemblies or libraries for link or run?
>
>Can't a single 'framework server' be set up on
>the Internet to sent the services of the framework?
>
>Isn't that what RMI and 'web methods' are all about?
>
>So why isn't System.Dll and System.Object a networked
>service?
>
>Why isn't Gtk a shared networked library?
>
>Why aren't the java Core classes public and networked?
>
>Why do I have to 'download and install' all these
>libraries, which are the same across all these
>local hard disks and therefore highly redundant.
>
>Advantage would be that it would always be up to
>date, and common across applications. Less installation.
>And it would be truly, write once, run anywhere
>because you would not need to have java classes,
>assemblies or libraries when you build, or run.
>
>
>
>
>--
>There are Ogg Vorbis streams @
>Virgin Radio
>http://www.virginradio.co.uk/thestat...ten/index.html
>
>.
>

While restarting Outlook, jbailo grumbled:

> My question is: why do we need to have local
> assemblies or libraries for link or run?
>
> Can't a single 'framework server' be set up on
> the Internet to sent the services of the framework?
>
> Isn't that what RMI and 'web methods' are all about?
>
> So why isn't System.Dll and System.Object a networked
> service?
>
> Why isn't Gtk a shared networked library?
>
> Why aren't the java Core classes public and networked?
>
> Why do I have to 'download and install' all these
> libraries, which are the same across all these
> local hard disks and therefore highly redundant.
>
> Advantage would be that it would always be up to
> date, and common across applications. Less installation.
> And it would be truly, write once, run anywhere
> because you would not need to have java classes,
> assemblies or libraries when you build, or run.

What a security nightmare!

--
Windows desktops and servers can find a safe haven on a
GNU/Linux/FreeBSD network!