Rickard Oberg wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> > Sorry, I do not agree.
> > While XML/HTTP will probably be used heavily for the frontend of systems,
> > IIOP is already a standard for communication between servers. Almost all
> > EJB vendors support it today. With XML your data is substantially larger
> > in size and this means higher transfer latency. Thus, I find it very
> > unlikely that vendors will throw away IIOP for XML/HTTP.
>
> Perhaps not throw away what they got, but large-scale ubiquitous
> interoperability will be done through XML/HTTP, not IIOP.
Maybe we don't disagree that much after all.
For interoperability between autonomyous systems and between systems
in different administrative domains I expect XML/HTTP to be used.
But for interoperability between servers in the same administrative
domain, I don't foresee document based communications like XML/HTTP
replacing object invocation based communications like RMI and CORBA.
> > With IIOP you can create clients and servers in C, C++, Java, COBOL
> > and Smalltalk. This means that if you find out that some service
> > is too slow you can rewrite it in C++ without having to update your
> > clients.
>
> Right... so, you're going to code your clients against a J2EE-ish server
> interface, and then port the server to C if the Java one can't handle it??
> Don't think so..
Why not?
Of course you miss all the advantages of EJB, but the wire protocol
does not change if you change the language of implementation.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
