So what happens if we consider changing the protocol and wrap the files
in said "new" protocol? Then clients can be developed in Java, perl,
pythn, c++, c#, FORTRAN, etc., for the OS of choice?
There's no reason why a client has to be coded in one language and run
across all platforms...
Robert P Dale wrote:
It seems to me we're jumping to the conclusion that LDM2 is intended only on
Windows and that it will be Java... If there's a way to have it function on
Linux & Windows, without being Java, I see no reason anyone would object?
From: Robert Mullenax [mailto:Robert.Mullenax@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:41 PM
To: Robert P Dale; ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ldm-users] Windows and LDM replacement
I also think IDV is better under Windows than Solaris or Linux..and I will
conceed Windows has good points. However the data ingest is the backbone of
one's whole operations...and like you say Java is ust not worth it. Makes
more sense to me for Unidata to insist on UNIX/Linux only platforms for that
portion and then as Dan suggested maybe offer some help to those new to UNIX
or Linux. It's not like an LDM-type only box needs that much attention. I
never touch our PDI NOAAport boxes at all. I would touch my other LDM boxes
if they weren't doing so many other things.
ldm-users mailing list
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.862.3982 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843