Re: I'm wondering for 3 years why the OPC Foundation didn't works out a new standard without DCOM. DCOM is dead since the .NET Framework cames out in 2002 (2001 the betas). Probably because it took the industry long enough to get together on a standard as it was, and they are still developing it as we speak. There's no practical way that process control vendors and users can keep up with Mr. (Sir?) Gates and his API du jour; hence the real need for a platform-independent standard. Corey Clingo BASF Corp. "Weiss, Andreas" <Andreas.Weiss@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 03/08/2005 01:10 AM Please respond to foxboro To: foxboro cc: Subject: [foxboro] AW: AIM OPC Server > but I fail to=20 > understand why one needs a DCOM and RPC infrastructure just=20 > to get data=20 > from a control system when a simple TCP socket will do. =20 I would prefer a more DCS and OS independent way too. > some comments from a member of the OPC Foundation. He saif=20 > that .NET is=20 > not really fast enough to do real-time data access, based on some=20 > experiments they've done (OPC-XML I think they call it) Please don't mix .NET and OPC-XML. That are technically different topics. OPC-XML is of course much slower than any other communication. I'm wondering for 3 years why the OPC Foundation didn't works out a new standard without DCOM. DCOM is dead since the .NET Framework cames out in 2002 (2001 the betas). Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave