Talk:Data Distribution Service

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Other publish/subscribe systems

i haven't understood the difference between OMG's Data Distribution Service and other publish/subscribe system, such as gryphon, siena, adn so on.

who can give a survey of comparing DDS and other pub/sub middleware?

thanks.

DDS is standard, the others (Siena, Mercury, Spread etc) are not. NDDS is an commercial implementation of DDS used by Department of Defense and others. The QoS part is also important.

The question is larger than simply that one (OMG DDS) is a standard and the others are not. Publish-Subscribe comes in various 'flavors' (Topic-based, Content-based, Type-based) and within them various ways to implement each. OMG DDS is based on the "Data-Centric Publish Subscribe" model where, in order to make it amenable for use in embedded and/or real-time environments, Topics are defined in accordance with a data model (think relational) and associated in various clearly defined ways with a Quality of Service (QoS). These QoS attributes define the offered (or expected) behavior of a publication (or subscription).

Note that the product from RTI is no longer called NDDS but "RTI DDS"; the name "NDDS" is reserved for their product that pre-dates (but which helped form the basis of, along with THALES SPLICE) the OMG DDS spec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.2 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is somewhat misleading, HLA (High Level Architecture) is an IEEE standard for a Publish/Subscribe middleware too. There are differences between HLA and DDS, but they are not particularly significant. HLA is targeted more towards the Modeling and Simulation community, while DDS is targeted towards a broader community. Careful examination will show that HLA can do things that DDS can't, and DDS can do things that HLA can't. However, missing features on both sides can be added by users by changes to the object model. --63.139.25.250 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the notable absences is Asian company "DDS" products. Rather than me listing some that I know about, perhaps the Asian DDS community should be solicited to add their content. 2001:558:6017:18E:DD02:57C1:43CD:4CEF (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links

External links to various (commercial and free) implementations of the DDS standard do add value to the page.

One link per vendor/group is enough, of course.

Interested in the newer implementations of DDS (esp TwinOaks) but am seriously confused by the one "CORBA+DDS" from http://www.pocomatic.com/docs/whitepapers/corba. Reading the white pages does NOT indicate that it is using the OMG DDS spec at all (or maybe by simple inference when it talks about doing 'simpler' version of it). Still, I don't see how one can infer that an open source product that talks about DDS and CORBA in the same white paper necessarily means the OMG DDS spec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.2 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of links to vendors , per not a link directory and links to be avoided. - MrOllie (talk)

As stated above the links are both content-relevant and add value. As they link to a variety of vendors, favoritism is not at play here. The external sites provide a large volume of relevant information that is not available on this page. Therefore I suggest that the page should site them as sources, or in keeping with similar pages, keep them as external links ChrisLloydPT (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to vendors are specifically addressed by WP:ELNO - we do not include them. I also notice that you are operating a single purpose account dedicated to promoting one of these vendors. I must advise you to read over the guidelines on conflict of interest and consider that if you continuing to push links to that company could result in the links being added to the spam blacklist, which no one wants to happen. If you know of other lists of external links to vendors on Wikipedia, please let me know about them as well. Thanks, - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My account is by no means single purpose. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and as such my list of edited articles is small. As I edit more, no doubt the list will expand. Having knowledge in an area does not make you single purpose. As there is information available on the external links that is not included in the article, I would maintain that they are relevant and on the official subject of DDS. However I do see your point on how it could be viewed as biased. Would you suggest then taking information from these sites and using them instead as sources? ChrisLloydPT (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionaly, the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states "...you should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent", and in this case I'll remind you, that you have a financial connection to the links your adding, See "public relations, and marketing"--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the talk above the external links should not be here. Why have they been added again? Swmwcloud (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These words

Data Distribution Service for Real-time Systems (DDS) is a specification of a publish/subscribe middleware for distributed systems created in response to the need to standardize a data-centric publish-subscribe programming model for distributed systems.

Data-centric? Programming model? Please explain. Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdull not node/machine/hardware centric. 203.6.69.2 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalling vs. Serialization

The phrare "marshalling and demarshalling" links to the page "serialization".

Wikipedia defines marshalling as similar but different from serialization. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marshalling_(computer_science)

Needs to be resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.233.124 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

The recent edit by MrOllie I believe is incorrect, the original shows where the created product exists today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLloydPT (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is about who created the standard, not about their products or what companies currently have business interests in them. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is misleading from its very first sentences, by erroneously conflating two uses of the word "specification." There is an international DDS standard specification which was created by the OMG and its member companies, not solely by any one company/team of companies. Multiple corporate and non-corporate member parties participated in that process. A pair of them contributed much more to the DDS standard than the other parties did, because they had previously been working on such a commercial product (as noted), and the other parties respected that work. Readers of this article are thus unknowingly exposed either to corporate marketing information, or to inadvertently misleading English. 2001:558:6017:18E:DD02:57C1:43CD:4CEF (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and move?

Real-Time Publish-Subscribe (RTPS) Protocol is a badly-named article that has never had any independent sources, so does not meet notability guidelines. It needs to be either deleted or merged to this one. We generally do not have separate articles on system and their protocols unless they are independently notable and each meet requires for a stand-alone non-stub article. I vote merge here and remove the duplication and wordiness. Also this one seems to describe one particular data distribution service, not the general concept. So should have been kept in upper case. English capitalizes proper nouns. Publish–subscribe pattern is probably the closest to the generic concept. W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for the arguments given above.67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry it took so long. This article also needed some work. See how much I can get done today. Thanks for your patience. W Nowicki (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data distribution service → Data Distribution Service – This seems to describe one data distribution service in particular, the one specified by OMG. The general concept is covered elsewhere as described above. W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.