> > >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=20 > > has a very well defined object model. Even if I had a library to=20 > > 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=20 > interoperable, once upon a time.
I think it's fair to say that by the time SOAP could /conceivably/ reach a level of maturity that would allow it to be generally adopted, CORBA will have been mature, having had implementations that have been efficiently interoperating for a goodly 5 years or more. Why go with something that will continue to be flaky for years to come when there's an /already mature/ technology that is /already part of GNOME/? -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@acm.org") http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/corba.html "When we write programs that "learn", it turns out that we do and they don't." -- Alan Perlis _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
