Dave Peticolas wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 19:20, Alex Barclay wrote:I'm certainly not advocating this at all. What I'm saying is that CORBA has a very well defined object model. Even if I had a library to implement the message encodings I would loose all of the benefits of that model especially with respect to things like object lifetimes. So far I've used CORBA from C++, Smalltalk, Perl and CORBA Script - you'll notice that C is absent from this list but I'm sure it won't be too difficult.
Derek Atkins wrote:Not that I am advocating SOAP, or any other method, but this
One of the applications I would like to produce at some point is a general ledger running on my palm. When I sync it would upload its data to the gnucash engine. If we went with a raw socket interface I'd be left writing the interface code. If we went with SOAP I'd be left writing the XML messages. If we go with CORBA I can use the current object mapping and concentrate only on my app.
is a misleading statement. You might as well say 'If we go
with CORBA, I'd be left writing the CORBA messages by
hand'. Of course, no one would do that since you could
use a CORBA library to do that for you. And that is precisely
what you would do with SOAP. There are several free SOAP
libraries available, for different languages.
Interworking is also a problem. CORBA defines bindings for many languages where SOAP implementations vary - which to my mind puts SOAP exactly where CORBA was before POA. No source level interoperability - which to my mind is a huge loss. This is not a problem with COM because that is only done by Micro$oft. On one of my last projects we dumped Orbix and went over to ACE/TAO with very little pain entirely because both implemented the same object model. We also did our conversion on a piecemeal basis because there was interoperability between the two ORBs.
Alex.
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
