Hi Bijan--

> I see three possible impediments to [the] wholesale, rapid adoption [of the
> Correspondents networking framework I wrote]:
>
>	1) It requires new primatives and these must be ported. Currently, they
> are available only (I believe) for Windows.

	True; although there is someone writing them for Linux. I have almost all the resources to write them for Linux, Mac, and Acorn (the missing resource being time :).

> Of course, it's absolutely the case that the current primatives must be replaced
> anyway. However, it might be wiser to make them pluggable. Craig, are there
> extensive barriers to doing this?

	No; I don't expect it to be any more difficult than any other set of primitives.

>	2) The framework is dependant on Craig's exception and streams
> frameworks. ("Exception-handling is used in many places...") So, adoption
> of Correspondence entails adoption of these as well.

	It doesn't require my exceptions framework, just one that offers a particular message interface. I think one could add a few convenience methods to any of the other exceptions packages and get a working system. But I do prefer the exceptions framework I wrote so far. :)  I need to look more closely at the internals of the Fourth Estate implementation before I can give a real technical opinion of it.

	The same basic premise applies to the streams framework, but that one would require significant effort.

>	3) This may be a moot issue, but the doc on Craig's website says: "The
> exception-handling framework requires scope-aware closures to work
> properly."

	Oops, that's out-of-date. It is a moot issue. It really only requires block temporaries, which I broke down and hacked. Full closures are still on my to-do list, though.


	Thanks very much for the summary! I'd also like to help however I can.

-C


--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
latta at interval.com
"Instant monotony! Just ad nauseam."