I've been thinking about the Disk-File vs. Database arguments for a
while, and I think there are some broader architectural changes to the
current datastore model that would need to be made before any kind of
multi-access could be implemented. My thesis is that if we can move
to a more
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the data communication side, there's also CORBA to consider.
I personally dislike CORBA. My reasoning is two-fold:
1) Synchronous RPC is BAD (in many cases).
2) CORBA tries to push protocol design onto programmers.. But
: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:28 PM
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: Rob Browning; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture?
delurk
Hi Derek,
While I'm hardly a CORBA expert, I'd like to reply to some of these
comments
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes it can. You can send multiple oneway requests, and let the remote
object send oneway replies back.
... at this point what added benefit are you getting from CORBA? To
me, at this point you are still defining a protocol, and using CORBA
for
side.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Derek Atkins [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 1:56 PM
To: Perik, Mike
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture?
Aren't
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, any comments?
Yep. How about "You're more or less exactly right." :
Pieces of this discussion have popped up on the list in various
incarnations over the years, and we all know this kind of thing is
needed, but it's a big job, and no one's exactly
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally dislike CORBA. My reasoning is two-fold:
I don't actually know enough about CORBA to dislike it : but I've
messed with RPC systems enough to sympathize strongly with your
criticisms.
I mostly just brought it up as another one of those
Jonathan Blandford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
84 RPC calls? That's pretty heavy, regardless of the protocol or
mechanism. But that aside, CORBA has the oneway directive that lets you
send asynchronous requests.
Yea, I was flabergasted when I heard that, too. It's not something
that M$ is
delurk
Hi Derek,
While I'm hardly a CORBA expert, I'd like to reply to some of these
comments.
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the data communication side, there's also CORBA to consider.
I personally dislike CORBA. My reasoning is
Derek Atkins writes:
So, any comments?
Yup, I agree too.
dave
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CORBA oneway calls are not guaranteed.
They require "best effort" by the ORB. Network calls aren't guaranteed
either...
Thanks,
-Jonathan
___
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Blandford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less code to write. More code share amongst other apps on your desktop
(ie. those using GNOME). If gnucash ever decides to use Bonobo, it'll
need to be using CORBA anyway. The thing about protocols (especially
those involving applications) is
2:28 PM
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: Rob Browning; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture?
delurk
Hi Derek,
While I'm hardly a CORBA expert, I'd like to reply to some of these
comments.
Derek Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rob
CORBA oneway calls are not guaranteed.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Blandford [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:28 PM
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: Rob Browning; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture
14 matches
Mail list logo
