From: Jarl Lindrud (jlindrud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-03 08:54:25
Iain Hanson <Iain.Hanson <at> videonetworks.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 19:27 +0000, Jarl Lindrud wrote:
> > Iain Hanson <Iain.Hanson <at> videonetworks.com> writes:
> > >
> > You're absolutely right that it's in no way a replacement for CORBA, but
> > its not meant to be either. I wrote it for those situations where you want
> > something simple and easy to use (there are many such situations, no?),
> > using CORBA feels like swinging a sledgehammer at a walnut.
> No. CORBA is very like C++ you pay for what you use. Simple rpc schemes
> are a misnomer and dangerous because they don't scale and users end up
> re-inventing the wheel such as naming service, security etc etc.
> Just because you can do something does not mean you should. I would
> classify SOAP and your RPC lib in the clever idea but you should not do
> it category.
So anything less than CORBA should not be considered?
My experience with CORBA is that you _do_ pay for things you don't need. Try
building a simple server/client app with my RPC library, and then build it with
ACE TAO, and I wonder which method you'll find to be simpler/easier/faster...
Which code is less invasive, more intuitive, and more proportional to the task?
And oh I forgot, don't forget to first build all of ACE and TAO, and then link
the whole shebang to your own 5 lines of code. To me it feels like I'm getting
far, far more than I asked for. But that's just me :-)
If you need scaleability, then obviously CORBA is one of the few options you
have. But if you don't need scaleability, or naming services, or whatever,
what's wrong with using something much simpler?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk