Object-oriented concepts such as reuse and encapsulation offer many benefits to application development, particularly in managing complexity and change. All the benefits of OO that apply to the client can apply equally well to the server. However, until recently, these concepts have proven to benefit only the client side. Could there be any intrinsic or conceptual reason for this? Or could it be a result of timing, the availability of the tools, and the conservative restraints that result from the mission-critical nature of server computing?This panel will explore the roles of objects on the server by examining the experiences of the panelists from a technology consumer's perspective. By doing so, we would like to provide insights for corporations that are making decisions on OO technology, point out pitfalls along the way, and identify potential opportunities for technology providers.All panelists have developed production level object servers. The panel will answer the question of whether we are ready for object servers by discussing the following issues:• Different server types: transactional server, data server, application server, web server, etc. Are they really that much different? Which one is the most important kind?• Experience in implementing and maintaining object systems on the server: the configurations of the systems and how they were arrived at; the tools and programming languages used.• Benefits and drawbacks of server object systems.• What's hard? What's easy?• What are the prerequisites for pervasive deployments of objects on the server? (e.g., standards, application types, customer situations, tools, and languages.)• What would be desirable for technology providers (researchers and vendors) to provide? (Tools, languages, execution environments that represents vendor opportunities.)• Practical advice to organizations interested in introducing objects to the server.

article Free Access Share on Is multiple inheritance essential to OOP? (panel) Authors: Yen-Ping Shan View Profile , Tom Cargill View Profile , Brad Cox View Profile , William Cook View Profile , Mary Loomis View Profile , Alan Snyder View Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGPLAN NoticesVolume 28Issue 10Oct. 1, 1993 pp 360–363https://doi.org/10.1145/167962.165923Published:01 October 1993Publication History 3citation781DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations3Total Downloads781Last 12 Months30Last 6 weeks2 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

Scheduling group meetings requires access to participants' calendars, typically located in scattered pockets or desks. Placing participants' calendars on-line and using a rule-based scheduler to find a time slot would alleviate the problem to some extent, but it often is difficult to trust the results, because correct scheduling rules are elusive, varying with the participants and the agenda of a particular meeting. What's needed is a comprehensive scheduling system that summarizes the available information for quick, flexible, and reliable scheduling. We have developed a prototype of a priority-based, graphical scheduling system called Visual Scheduler (VS).

The Smalltalk Model-View-Controller (MVC) user interface paradigm uses polling for its input control. The polling loops consume CPU cycles even when the user is not interacting with the interface. Applications using Smalltalk as their front-end often suffer unnecessary performance loss. This paper presents a prototype event-driven MVC framework to solve these problems. A solution to the compatibility problem is also provided to allow interface objects built under both polling and event-driven mechanisms to be used by each other with no modification and no performance penalty.