Jim, thanks for the comments, there are always different ways to look at things which is what makes life interesting!
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 07:34 -0800, Lux, James P wrote: > > > On 12/31/08 1:38 AM, "Bob Cowdery" <b...@g3ukb.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rob, Frank > > > > Thanks for the input. SOAP, usually over HTTP, is as you say very > > lethargic and entirely unsuited to this type of system. It's also a > > pretty low level of abstraction. > SOAP can be at whatever level of abstraction you want. HTTP is just the > transport mechanism, and I've seen some very fast implementations within a > single processor (after all, how much does it take to do a "GET"). Where it > gets clunky is when there's a mismatch between server and client, or where > there's a lot of "late binding" (i.e. Lots of back and forth to establish > the vocabulary of the conversation, then once both sides have agreed on what > they're going to send, actually sending the data.) A lot of implementations > use a very "interpreter-like" front end to do the lexical analysis and > parsing from a not particularly efficient data structure. Sort of like > saying "Here's a BASIC program to tell the server what the client needs" and > then having the server parse the BASIC program. > I've used it to an extent in commercial system where I wanted to orchestrate across enterprise boundaries using UDDI as a location service - for that its good but I don't like it much for distributing the components of a single application. > > > >CORBA I believe is pretty much dead > > except for a bunch of niche users. > > One of those niches, is, oddly enough, software defined radios. OMGs > Software Communications Architecture (SCA) uses CORBA for middleware (google > CORBA SCA for lots of stuff). So does the DoD Joint Tactical Radio System > (JTRS).. > > Both of these are fairly big efforts (multi billion dollar), and one can > find much to gripe about with both, but, as far as installed base, they're > pretty dominant in the SDR world. > Yes I agree they are major users, in fact most users are now in the technical arena. I think once you buy into the technology in a big way its hard to back out or even switch vendor as interoperability was never that great between vendors. > > > There are some good alternative > > commercial offerings but I'm looking for open source as all my stuff is > > open source. I have a test bed in pylink-sr and as Ice has Python > > bindings this would be a low-cost way to get a comparison. At the moment > > I am using net-jack for audio distribution and Pyro for control > > distribution. Moving both of those over to Ice would give me a good > > side-by-side comparison of performance and relative code complexity. It > > will be interesting if nothing else. > > > > 73 > > Bob > > G3UKB > > > > On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 16:07 +0100, Frank Goenninger wrote: > >> Hi Bob, hi Rob, > >> > >> Web Services based on SOAP (or HTML, which means the same, normally) > >> is all over the place these days. If you require real performance I'd > >> strongly recommend to stay away from anything XML or CORBA. XML is way > >> to inefficient in its gross/net information ratio. CORBA requires > >> significant amounts of processing power to handle all the proxy and > >> interface finding stuff. > >> > > Kind of depends on where you need the performance.. If it's something like > tuning a radio every second, no big deal. If it's running a FIR filter, > probably not. > One of the things I want is a proper event service and that's hard to do with HTTP. I'm prepared to give Ice a shot at being a better CORBA, if it doesn't get there I've just lost a little time, but either way I get to add something to the armoury or write something off. > _______________________________________________ FlexRadio Systems Mailing List FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kc.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
