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