Battlefield 2 Objects Server.zip Download BETTER
Click Here ->>> https://urluss.com/2tfWhl
The Indochina Vietnam conflict 1946-1973 No other military conflict is comparable to those dramatic years of the 20th century. Most rumors spread about the Indochina and Vietnam War are not honest, even though it was the best documented war in history. No other military conflict was ever so controversial, pointing to an unloved fact: our enemy was not the only source of evil, the evil could be found within ourselves. The \"Eve Of Destruction\" mod is a tribute to the U.S. , ARVN and Vietcong/NVA soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam, and also to the Vietnamese people. Eve of Destruction is available for Battlefield 2, Battlefield 1942, and Battlefield: Vietnam.Download the file. Save it to a known location upon your computer. Once downloaded. Navigate to your BF2 Mod Folder, specifically, your EoD Mod folder. Once you are at your EoD Mod folder. Go into the EoD Mod folder and find the \"Objects\" folder. Inside the Objects folder you will see the \"weapons_server.zip\" Delete this zip file and/or rename it to another name. Copy, Drag/Drop the downloaded new zip file you just got into the Objects folder.
The accompanying files contain photographs of artifacts that were recovered during 2015 and 2016 archaeological surveys. In order to protect the integrity of the battlefield, specific locations have been withheld and no maps are included. It is hoped, however, that in sharing these images the reader will gainan appreciation of the physical record that remains of the battle. The types of weapons and ammunition used by the belligerents may be gleaned from these images. The continuity of land usage is also observable in the variety of agricultural objects deposited over the centuries. The mysterious sections of lead pipe recovered in multiple locations indicate a possible source of raw material for round balls. It is hoped that a more detailed summary of these findings will be made available in the near future.
Additional keywords and phrases: (D)COM, Java, CORBA, OLE, persistent objects, ODMG, workgroupslide: Component technologyIn this chapter we will study component technology,which combines object-oriented featuressuch as encapsulation and (interface) inheritancewith (logical and/or physical) distribution.In reality, component technology is not a clear-cutcategory but rather, according to [Szyperski97],a battlefield in action (with (D)COM, CORBA and Javaas the main players), from which eventuallya winner will arise, or perhaps a mergeof technologies.In this chapter, we will explore the forces at work,and in addition we will look at a case studydeploying CORBA and Java for the creation of a workgroup application,and the integration of CORBA with an existing framework,hush. Objects versus components subsections: Definitions The technology matrix Component myths As observed in [Szyperski97],there is some confusion between the notions ofobject and component.In this section we will look at the definitionof component and compare it with what we knowof objects.We will further explore the technology matrix,which classifies a selection of the available (component)technologies.Finally, we will discuss some of the software engineeringissues involved in component-oriented development,and do away with some of the myths that surroundcomponent technology. DefinitionsObject orientation has not quite fulfilled its promisewith respect to reuse.One of the reasons for this is that objects are generallynot as modular as they might appear.Or, in the words of [Szyperski97], objectsare not a suitable unit of deployment. Component substitutability
Let us look at the definition of software componentgiven in [Szyperski97]: A software component is a unit of composition with contractually specified interfaces and explicit context dependencies only.A software component can be deployed independentlyand is subject to composition by third parties. This definition was the result of an ECOOP96 Workshop on Component-oriented Computing.Notice that the definition itself containsa reusability requirement, in mentioningcomposition by third parties.The requirements of explicit context dependencies,the absence of inherent state and contractually specifiedinterfaces only strengthen this.In contrast, an object is not a unit of deployment,but a unit of instantiation.Objects are not used in isolation.Objects, do have state and identity.Deploying an object or a collection of objects, moreover,is often subject to (implicit) assumptionsconcerning the interaction of objects.Components as better objectsFrom the characterization above it might appearthat components are just better objects.To some extent this is true, but there are someimportant differences.First of all, in practice, there is a differencein granularity. Components are usually large grain,such as a text editor or database component.Objects, on the other hand, may be small grain,such as dates or text fields.Secondly, components are opaque, `binary units' of functionality,interchangeable with units that deliver the same functionality.Objects, in contrast, carry a state and may be regardedas the living building blocks of an organic system. [Szyperski97] mentions that there is a debatewhether inheritance is of relevance for component technology.No doubt, inheritance, although somewhat overrated,is an invaluable mechanism, both interface inheritance,to define hie-rarchies of types, andcode reuse or implementation inheritance,to allow for incremental development.Reconsidering the definitions given,I tend to think of the distinction betweencomponents and objects as a distinction betweenperspectives.From a deployment perspective we need components.From a developer's perspective we might prefer to speakabout objects.Unfortunately, matters are not that easy.But we need to take a closer look at the technologyto find out why. The technology matrixThe component technology field is currently dominatedby three players:Microsoft (D)COM,OMG CORBA, and (the youngest player)Sun Microsystems Java.When comparing these technologies with respect to attributessuch asdistribution,mobility,language and platform independence, andreflective capabilities,we see that there are many differences. distributionmobilitylanguageplatformreflectionCOM----*--+/--DCOM+--*+/--+/--CORBA+--**+/--Java/Beans--classesJava*+Java/RMI+classesJava*+Voyager+objectsJava*+slide: The technology matrixFirst of all, notice that component technology doesnot automatically mean distribution.For example, JavaBeans and Microsoft COM do not supportdistribution.Secondly, whereas language independence seemed to beof importance in the pre-Java era, that is for (D)COM and CORBA,it is not so for the Java-based solutions.Finally, platform independence is hard to achieve.But, fortunately, it is on the agenda of all threetechnologies, including (D)COM.It is worth mentioning that the three major technologies havea rather different origin.Microsoft (D)COM is primarily a desktop technology,with Office as its killer application,whereas CORBA originated from the need to have an enterprise-widesolution for distributed objects.Java is a special case. It started as a Web-based language,but rapidly took position in the desktop and enterprise world as well.Java distinguishes itself from the other technologiesboth with respect to mobility and reflection.As a Web-based language, Java allows for downloadingcode dynamically, that is class descriptions for instantiating newobjects.True mobile objects,that is instantiated objects that migrate themselves,are only possible when using a system such as Voyager,or any of the other Java-based agent ORBs.Java also provides a powerful Reflection API,which allows for various kinds of meta-programming,including the creation of new classes.In comparison, meta-programming facilities ofthe two other technologies are limitedto querying the availability and functionality of interfaces,dynamic method invocationand some dynamic typing. Trends -- interoperabilityIt is hard to predict the outcome of the `battle of component technologies'.However, one can observe a convergence of technologies, that isbridges between Java and CORBA,CORBA and (D)COM, andJava and (D)COM/ActiveX.Each of these technologies sets a standard for interoperability.So, eventually some new standard may arise that encompasses them all.In the meantime, we may study the strengths of each of thesetechnologies and establish what major challenges lie ahead.For example, Microsoft COM has demonstrated itself in an unescapableway in Microsoft Office.A related technology, OpenDoc, failed to gain a marketposition, but is nevertheless taken on by the OMGas document-oriented component technology.An interesting project in this respect is theK-Office project,which aims at developing an Office Application Suite for the Unix/X11 desktop.It is built upon the KDE GUI environment,and employs a CORBA-based component technology,(nick)named KOM, to interconnect(embed and link) the various document componentsand their associated tools. See . Component mythsComponent software engineering may be characterizedas an approach that relies on the availability ofreusable `off-the-shelf' components that may be composedinto applications.This includes applications for banking,medical services,corporate management,entertainment,etcetera. Components: myths and reality component-ware allows for combining componentsif semantical issues can be resolved
In this section, we will look at the Java platform from theperspectives listed in slide Perspectives.The rhetoric in these reflections must not be misunderstoodas dismissing Java, but as a way to get holdof the issues that play a role in adopting the Java technology,or any of the competing technologies, for business-criticalapplications.Internet applicationsJava was introduced in 1995 at the WWW3 Conferencein Darmstadt as `the dial-tone of the Internet',with applets as its killer application.The dial-tone, because Java is platform-neutraland network-aware.In practice, applets form only a small part of Java applications.Together with the Beans component technology and RMI,Java seems to be an ideal platform for companies thatwish to employ the Internet and the Web for commercial applications.However, most developers have no idea how to adopt theJava platform without sacrificing their investmentin legacy applications, such as a corporate database.The question is whether there is a migration strategy.In comparison, OMG CORBA seems to have better answers in this respect, although combinationsof RMI and JNI (the Java Native Interface)have also been suggested as a technical solution.Software engineering [Lewis97] argues that within two decades we willhave Java legacy problems similar to the legacymaintenance problems we have now.Software development with Java is not an issue.There are excellent tools, there is a large amount ofgood documentation, and there are loads of APIs.In general, software development with Java seems tobe easier than, for example, with C++.However, long-term maintenance is a different question altogether.The answer to this question depends on standardization,and issues such as language and platform independence.We must consider that Java is a programming technology,and a good one in this respect, and not an integrationtechnology such as CORBA, for which the specification ofdomain-independent and domain-specific standards,including services and facilities, is the primary issue. Language designJava may be regarded as a second-generationthird-generation programming language.Complex as this may sound, it is meant toexpress that Java is an object-oriented imperative languagethat shows the influence of many of its predecessors,the minimality of Pascal, threads,the flavor of C++.Personally, I am somewhat bothered by the semantic compromisesin Java.For example, the equality operator for stringsdoes, against all expectations, not testfor string equality but for reference equality.Threads is another issue.Why only a keyword synchronizedand not an Ada-like selectSee, for example, [Petitpierre98].Java has been developed in great haste.For example, assertion (like Eiffel) seem to have beenomitted simply because the implementation was buggyat the time of a delivery deadline.System developmentThe Java virtual machine is a good idea.It can be realized on any platform, including computers ofall sorts and a variety of gadgets.Java is easy to learn and there are many tools.However, a survey entitled `Are Java Tools ready for Prime Time'indicated that all tools still needed improvements.Now back to the reality of software development.Many Internet applications are written in script languages.Perl for server-side scripting andJavascript on the client-side.Given the efficiency problems of Java(which are a consequence of the virtual machine approach)and the long download times for applets,Java runs the risk of being too light forheavy-duty servers and too heavy for lightweight clients.Computer scienceJava has been adopted by many universitiesas the first programming language,and students like it.That is a good thing, although I am worried to seeC++ disappear from the curriculum.In terms of research, what Java offers is not really new.Personally, I am somewhat disappointedthat the attention is focused on another third-generationlanguage,whereas to my mind, we should have a declarative programmingtechnology on our research agendas,a technology that supports the development of reliable andverifiable software.Nevertheless, Java appears to be an excellent platform forWeb-related research.IT (in) businessJava is being adopted rapidly.It is nevertheless hard to establish to what extentthis involves mission-critical applications or pilot projects.After all, at the time of writing, Java is stillcutting-edge technology.And common wisdom has it not to usecutting-edge technology for strategic projects, see [Surviving].An example of a business application frameworkis the IBM San Francisco framework,discussed insection San Francisco,which offers generic solutions for the realizationof business processes, such as order management and quality control.Nevertheless, crucial issues in this area do not seemto concern technology per se,but rather the standardization of such notionsas business objects, business processes and, of course,business logic.This is also an area of active OMG interest.Global villageOn the Internet we see an increasing numberof virtual communities deploying 3D technology forrendering worlds and their inhabitants.Imagine a virtual stockmarket.Decisions must be taken quickly.There is an overload of information,from a variety of sources.Stock prices, political tensions,market trends, all these must be monitoredcontinuously.In critical situations, direct actions must be possible.A nice playground for virtual worlds technology.Is the Java platform ripe for thisIt might, given the Java3D and JavaVRML97 efforts.And what about the knowledge managementDiscussionIn summary, Java is a promising platform,with a wealth of APIs for the development of avariety of applications.At this stage there might be problems of efficiencyand problems due to the instability andimmaturity of the APIs offered.However, as indicated, there are a number of issuesthat surpass the reach of the Java platformsince they do not depend on technicalsolutions only.The most important issues, I would say,concern the standardization of (domain-specific)business objects and processes,and the migration problems due to the inescapableexistence of legacy applications. An Internet-based workgroup applicationThe goal of the project described in this sectionwas to develop a prototypefor an Internet-basedworkgroup architecture using CORBA technology.CORBA provides a means for developing distributed object applications,while the Internet provides a standard and widely accessible networkinfrastructure. Users should not need special client softwareto use the system, other than a Java-enabled browser such as Netscape. document.write(\"\");slide: Object modelThe object model guiding the implementationis depicted in slide object-model.The most important notion in our system is that of an agent,which is defined as a representative of a user which can performsimple operations on the user's behalf, such as sending messagesto and making appointments with other agents.Each user participating is represented by a personalagent, which has an agenda and a message queue. Each agenda consistsof several appointments. A workgroup has a membership list consistingof zero or more agents present in the system. An agent can bea member of zero or more workgroups.Possible operations on agents are sending messagesto and making appointments with other agents, subscribing to aworkgroup, making an appointment with a workgroup or sending amessage to all workgroup members. All interaction of the user with the system is donevia Java applets, which combine a graphical user interface withInternet access and CORBA functionality. The server is implementedin C++. We used Visigenic's (formerly PostModern Computing)CORBA 2.0-compliant product ORBelineto implement the server and BlackWidow from the same vendor toimplement the Java clients. The server can run on most UNIX platforms,as well as on Windows NT, while the Java applets, running on topof a Java Virtual Machine, can theoretically run on every platformthat Java supports. In addition, a C++ browser/monitor was developedthat can be used to interrogate agents and workgroups and to monitormessage flows.The Java client applets are first transferred tothe client by the HTTP server using a web page and then contactthe object server through IIOP, the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol.The client applets run in Netscape or HotJava and contain theCORBA client communications software as well as the client applicationcode. The object server can reside on a different machine thanthe Web server and is running an IIOP gatekeeper, for instanceon {\\sc tcp} port 15000, that is part of the ORB. All further communicationis done through this gatekeeper.DiscussionDuring the development of a simple workgroup applicationusing CORBA, we experienced a number of limitations inherent tothe CORBA architecture. The most important problem we faced was the distinctionbetween clients and servers, where distributed objects can onlyreside on a server. If a client wants to make its objects availableto other programs, it should be configured as a server as well,with an ORB running on the same host. This causes problems regardingoverhead and licensing and is not a feasible situation for thedistribution of (Java) clients over the Internet.The same architecture limitation prevents servers from notifyingclients using callbacks. This feature makes it impossible for clients to passdistributed object references back to the server, forcing themto work with other identification mechanisms such as object IDsor human-readable strings. Other minor problems we observed concern the lackof support for existing non-CORBA objects in a distributed environment.Possible solutions are converting existing classes to CORBA andmaking their interface available through IDL, or to write CORBAobject wrappers around these objects.Finally, not all parts of a CORBA system are compatible amongORBs at the source-code level. This problem should, however,be alleviated with the Portable ObjectAdapter (POA). Crush -- extending hush with CORBAThis section describes how the hush toolkithas been extended with CORBA functionality.The nickname for this effort was crush.The major problem that arises when extendinga given toolkit or framework, such as hush,with CORBA IDL interfaces and classes toimplement these interfaces is to provide fora seamless integration of the already existingcode with the CORBA-based extensions.In crush we have included facilitiesfor object creation and access, as well as client-sideadaptors for the hush CORBA objects,to resolve the type clash between the original hush class hierarchy and the hush CORBA object classes. Extending a framework with CORBA the legacy problem -- granularity of wrappers object creation and access -- factories and tables client-side adaptors -- to fit within native type system events versus objects -- natural interfacesslide: Extending a framework with CORBAExtending a given framework with CORBA is not as straightforwardas it may seem.First of all, one has to decide which interfacesmay become public, that is may be exported asIDL interfaces.Secondly,one has to decide how object references become knownto clients, and what rights clients haveto create objects within a particular server.The most important problem, however, concernsthe type clash between the CORBA classesimplementing the IDL interfacesand the `native' class hierarchyoffered by the framework itself.The legacy problem -- integrating CORBACORBA technology is well suited to developdistributed applications.For new projects, the restrictions imposed byCORBA can be taken into consideration from the start.For projects that carry the legacy of existing code,a decision must be made to what extent theCORBA functionality is integrated with the legacy code.On one side of the spectrum,CORBA technology can be used simply for wrapping the legacycode.For example a database may be embeddedin a CORBA server, without affecting the database itself.However, for an object-oriented framework such as hushsuch a solution is not very satisfying.Instead, one would like to have the basicinterfaces of hush available to developdistributed components of arbitrary granularity.Object creation and accessThe CORBA Naming Service may be used to provide access toan object residing somewhere on a server.Alternatively, the server may export a reference toa factory object that allows the client to create objects within theserver.For giving access to objects within a particular hushcomponent, we have provided dots (distributed object tables)for both hush and the widgets components.Using the dot the client can access an object of a given type bythe name it is given by the server.The object must already exist in the server.In case clients are allowed to create objects withinthe server, a factory is provided for creating hushor widget objects.Client-side adaptorsThe intermediary between clients and servers in a CORBA-based systemare the CORBA IDL classes generated by the idl compilerfrom the IDL interfaces.These classes (using the C++ language binding)inherit directly from the CORBA::Object class and hence do not fit within the given class hierarchy.To allow clients the use of CORBA IDL classes wherever oneof the original hush classes is expected,client-side adaptors have been provided for each of the hushor widgets IDL classes.An additional advantage of client-side adaptors is thatthey allow for overcoming the `weaknesses' of IDL with respect tooverloading member functions,parametrized types and operator definitions.Typically, client-side adaptors have their corresponding hush classas a base class and simply delegate method invocationsto the CORBA object they encapsulate.Events versus object method invocationSince GUI components are in some way typicallyevent-driven, one may be inclined to limitthe communication between such components to exchanging events.The CORBA Event Service would suffice for such communications.Nevertheless, in our opinion events should be used in a very restricted manner.Events tend to break the `crisp' object interfaces thatare one of the benefits of an object-orientedapproach to design.For the hush CORBA extensions, we have chosen for retaining the original hushobject interfaces.Note however that the IDL interfaces are somewhat moreabstract than the corresponding C++ interfaces.Nevertheless, the event interface is partof the hush module.Together with the dispatch function of the handler interface incoming events resulting from user actions may be dispatched directly toremote components. InterfacesThe IDL interfaces reflect to a large extent the functionality ofthe original hush and widgets interfaces.In this section a partial listing of the interfaces will be given.In comparison with the corresponding C++/Java classes,the IDL interfaces are much more abstract in the sense thatmany member functions required for the actual implementation of the hush frameworkmay be omitted. The hush moduleThe hush module contains interfaces corresponding tothe basic hush classes,handler, event, kit, widgetand item, as well as the auxiliary classesfor iterators and containers. interface handler { handler event dispatch( in event data ); }; slide: handlerThe handler interface provides only a methodfor dispatching events. It may be extended in thefuture though.In hush almost every class is derived from handler.This is directly reflected in the hush IDL interfaces. interface event : handler { event attribute long type; attribute long x; attribute long y; }; slide: eventThe event interface offers attributes todetermine the type of event and its location.Also the event interface will very likely be extended inthe future, to allow for a greater variety of events. interface kit : handler { kit void source(in string file); void eval(in string command); string result(); widget root(); }; slide: kitIn hush, a kit provides an interface tosome embedded interpreter, such as a Tcl interpreteror a logic engine.The kit also gives access to the underlying window environment;in particular it may be asked to provide a reference tothe root window. interface widget : handler { widget string path(); void eval( in string cmd ); void configure( in string options ); void pack( in string options ); }; slide: widgetA widget is a user interface gadget.The widget interface collects the functions thatall these gadgets have in common. interface item : handler { item void move( in long x, in long y ); }; slide: itemAn item is obtained when creating a graphicalobject for a canvas. Subsequently, the item referencesuffices to manipulate such objects.Also the item interface will very likelybe extended in the future.Iterators and listsAs an alternative forCORBA arrays and sequences, the hushmodule offers interfaces for iterators and containers. interface iterator { iterator Object next(); }; slide: iteratorFrom a client's perspective, an iteratoris a data generator.To deal with typed iterators, the hushC++ library offers template client-side adaptor classesencapsulating the untyped CORBA iterators. interface container { container long length(); Object first(); Object next(); Object current(); iterator walk(); }; slide: containerThe container interface offers accessto the hush list class.It offers functions for cursor-based list traversalas well as the walk function that may be used to obtain an iterator.Factories and distributed object tablesTo obtain references to objects, clients may useeither factory object or distributed object tables. interface factory { factory hush::kit kit(in string name); hush::event event(in long type); }; slide: factoryThe factory interface allows only for creating a kit and for creating an event.Note that handler objects may not be created directly. interface dot { dot hush::kit kit(in string name); hush::container container(in string name); hush::iterator iterator(in string name); hush::factory hush(in string name); }; slide: dotApart from giving access to a hush factory, the dot interface allows for getting access toa kit, a container andan iterator.When obtaining references through a dot object,these objects are assumed to exist within the server. The widgets moduleThe widgets module provides the actual user interfacegadgets for hush.Below we have included only the (partial) interfaces fora canvas and a message widget. module widgets { interface canvas : hush::widget { canvas canvas create( in hush::widget anc, in string path ); hush::item circle( in long x, in long y, in long radius, in string options ); // other items ... }; interface message : hush::widget { message message create( in hush::widget anc, in string path ); void text(in string txt); }; interface factory : hush::factory { factory widgets::canvas canvas(in string name, in string options); widgets::message message(in string name, in string options); }; interface dot : hush::dot { dot widgets::canvas canvas(in string name); widgets::message message(in string name); widgets::factory widgets(in string name); }; }; slide: module widgetsNote that each widget type has a method create,with which an actual widget of that type can be created.In effect this means that each widget object may act as a factoryfor widget objects of that type.(The server may however refuse to create such objects!)In addition to the specific gadget interfaces, the widgets moduleprovides a factory and dot interface,extending the respective hush interfaces. ExamplesThe hush CORBA extensions may be used in a number of ways.For example, the client does not need to be linked with hushwhen only the server side is given a graphical user interface.In the case that also the client has a graphical user interface,the client side may dispatch incoming events to the server,as illustrated in the canvas example.The communication between server and clients can be arbitrarily complex.The final example shows how to employ iterators and containersto give clients accesses to collections of information. A remote interpreter kitThis example uses a remote kit. It shows how to get access to a message widget and a kit via a dot(which is a distributed object table). The client access the kit and the message widget by using a name(hello for the message widget and tk for the kit). The client can send Tcl/Tk interpreter commands to thekit. client 153554b96e
https://www.ahimsaplanet.co.uk/forum/self-help-forum/publicdisgrace-12-11-16-siri-xxx-720p-mp4-ktr