A good post about Michi's article from Steve Vinoski:
 
http://www.iona.com/blogs/vinoski/archives/000307.html

----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Newcomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:54:14 PM
Subject: Re: [service-orientated-architecture] WebServices to repeat CORBA's mistakes : "The Rise and Fall of CORBA"

This article is at best, revisionist history with frequent mistakes, and at worst a justification of Michi's company has developed and marketed a proprietary alternative to CORBA.
 
Unfortunately, despite the title and the general criticism in the introduction, it doesn't contain much specific to Web services. 
 
And while the criticisms in the article about the standards process are valid in general, and no doubt contributed to some of the technical shortcomings in CORBA, standards are not as much about technology as they are about agreement and adoption.  
 
Michi worked with us at IONA for a year or so, and he was as rabidly pro-CORBA in those days as he is anti-CORBA now that he works for ICE. 
 
At the end of the day these "my technology is better than your technology" arguments often fail to address a key point, which is how standards gain adoption. 
 
Michi does highlight the complexity of CORBA, which is a fair criticism, but if you look at CORBA as a step in the evolution of the middleware industry, it is also fair to say that CORBA is less complex than what preceded it, just as Web services are less complex than CORBA.
 
In the early days of CORBA everyone thought that a single middleware solution or standard would emerge, and that everyone would adopt it and all distributed applications would be based on it.  We know better now, and the emergence of XML and Web services if nothing else has put to bed these unrealistic aspirations.  The world of middleware is heterogenous and will always be.
 
Michi argues that CORBA failed because of its technical limitations.  Well, CORBA did not fail.  In fact CORBA is more widely deployed in high performance distributed applications than any other standards-based technology on the market. 
 
It is true that CORBA is viewed as a legacy technology.  We at IONA are the CORBA market leaders and we acknowledge that.  But legacy technologies are also proven, high performance, reliable, stable, widely adopted (else we would not be even talking about them) and very useful for the applications that depend upon them. 
 
CICS is the grandaddy of legacy technologies and it is likely that a majority of the world's transactions are still processed using CICS today. However if we follow Michi's logic, CICS is also a failure.  
 
Also whatever criticisms one might have about the Web services standardization process, it is a mistake to say that it has an OMG behind it.  Web services standards are not led by a single organization, which is actually a big part of the problem.  We have OASIS, W3C, WS-I, JCP, and Microsoft/IBM all working on various aspects of Web services, also SCA now in fact...  This is a very different situation than CORBA and the OMG.
 
Eric

 
----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:26:56 AM
Subject: [service-orientated-architecture] WebServices to repeat CORBA's mistakes : "The Rise and Fall of CORBA"

The Rise and Fall of CORBA
Michi Henning, ACM Queue

[...] Web services, the current silver
bullet of middleware, uses a process much like the OMG's and, by many
accounts, also suffers from infighting, fragmentation, lack of
architectural coherence, design by committee, and feature bloat. It
seems inevitable that Web services will enact a history quite similar
to CORBA's.

http://acmqueue. com/modules. php?name= Content&pa= showpage& pid=396

Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter. nu/ ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __



__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to