Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7   
   com.users.c_cpp   
   UTC)   
   .os2.programmer.misc:1872 openwatcom.users.c_cpp:1968   
   From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard    
      
   >>> I still think PM/WPS/SOM was best model I ever worked with. Even    
   >>> DSOM was more usable than most current desktop systems.   
   >>>   
   >> Which brings us back to the discussion of realistic short-term goals    
   >> from elsewhere in this thread. The whole DSOM mechanism isn't    
   >> necessaryto start with. Just enough of a runtime for an ordinary    
   >> DirectToSOM C/C++ program to work would be enough.   
   >>   
   > I don't recall if the later versions of Watcom still had the    
   > DirectToSOM functionality or not. I have an earlier version around    
   > that has it but I have this nagging notion that SOM disappeared in the    
   > later versions of Watcom. To me, DSOM was important because 1. the    
   > company wanted to use it and had it incorporated in some of the DB/2    
   > related programs and 2. DSOM identified and caused a lot of SOM2.x    
   > bugs to get fixed.   
   >   
      
   Watcom C/C++ has never had DirectToSOM C++ in any version as far as I am    
   aware.  DSOM is usually Distributed SOM, by the way, not DirectToSOM.     
   You were originally talking about Distributed SOM, weren't you?   
      
   Supporting Distributed SOM and supporting DirectToSOM C++ programs are    
   two different animals.  Supporting Distributed SOM requires a whole load    
   of infrastructure, from marshalling through IPC interfaces to repository    
   support.  Supporting simple DirectToSOM C++ programs requires just the    
   basic SOM runtime support, in particular the method lookups that are    
   used by compiled DirectToSOM C++ code, the basic SOMObject and SOMClass    
   classes, object memory management, and a few other bits and pieces.   
      
      
   --- Internet Rex 2.31   
    * Origin: virginmedia.com (1:261/20.999)