From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-02 00:13:01
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Jonathan Biggar <jon_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Doesn't have to be CORBA. Just OO middleware that's "inspired" by
> You're talking about a couple of orders of magnitude more work to get
> something going, compared to the pretty much complete implementation I'm
> People need to recognize that developing good transparent OO invocation
> middleware is far from trivial. It's a complex problem, and complex
> problems need relatively complex solutions.
You're preaching to the choir. I worked on a CORBA-based middleware product
for *many* years. Even contributed in very small ways (bug patches) to TAO.
Though I haven't given up hope on building something that is simple and
elegant to use.
Many things, like the NameService spec, can be wrapped in a utility
> class that makes it quite easy to use and avoids the klunkiness.
Been there too. I just don't want another "pretty" wrapper around something
I find fundamentally flawed.
But that's my opinion, and is not to say that others won't find it useful,
No, but don't trivialize how long it takes to get to butt-kicking stage. :)
I understand the scope and magnitude. I also posit that if you build
something on top of CORBA, you'll never get to the butt-kicking stage. Just
my opinion from having squandered years of my life in the attempt.
> > My gut feeling is that changing CORBA in any but superficial ways will
> Yes. In fact I know one of the developers quite well.
I would be much happier w/ something built on an architecture similar to
In a nutshell, when I need CORBA, I use TAO. But I really want something
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk