On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 08:05, Alex Barclay wrote: > Dave Peticolas wrote: > > >On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 19:20, Alex Barclay wrote: > > > > > >>Derek Atkins wrote: > >>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. > >> > >> > > > >Not that I am advocating SOAP, or any other method, but this > >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. > > > > > 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
<snip> Ok, then I agree with you. It wasn't clear you were saying all of that in your original message. I do think SOAP's interoperability will improve eventually. The different CORBA ORBs weren't very interoperable, once upon a time. dave
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
