Re: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: WebServices to repeat CORBA's mistakes : "The Rise and Fall of CORBA"

[Steve Jones]

CORBA as the answer to DCOM... get your flame retardent suit on...

 

CORBA - http://www.omg.org/gettingstarted/history_of_corba.htm started in 1991

DCOM - http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6zzy7zky.aspx started in 1996

 

CORBA failed for three reasons (IMO)
1) Focused on interop too late in the game

2) Tried to be too complex too early

3) Microsoft didn't want to play and made up their own approach (DCOM)

 

CORBA failed less than DCOM (which no-one else took up) but was supplanted by simpler approaches that concentrated on iterop much earlier (e.g. RMI, SOAP etc).

 

Steve
 

On 29/06/06, Gautham Kasinath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hey there,
Well, I was confused by the line: "Well, it tells us that HTTP is a

higher level "thing" than RMI, IIOP,"

How do you define the "thing"?
IMHO, HTTP is only a transport. Hence in the grand design of Service
Oriented Architecture (of which Web Services may be a means), HTTP
plays a very insignificant role.

CORBA however, was a separate paradigm in computing, IMHO. I guess it
was mostly the open sources answer to D-COM. However, I am unclear
about the causes of its failure. I Will need to explore that avenue.

Cheers
G

--- In service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Baker"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On 6/28/06, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark Baker wrote:

> > > On 6/28/06, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Humm, but it has been said here that HTTP is an application
layer protocol. The
> > >>semantics of INVOKE are well defined. A remote reference is
indicated in the
> > >>payload which is the service as a URI is in HTTP. The
parameters of the method
> > >>call are arbitrary, but particular to the service, just like the
payload of POST
> > >>or PUT. The INVOKE always returns a reply as HTTP does. Help
me understand
> > >>what is not uniform about that?
> > >
> > > You have to INVOKE an operation. That operation is the application
> > > layer semantic.
> >
> > Right, and with HTTP, the message layer semantics that transpire
based on you
> > invoking a HTTP operation are at the same level as the eventual method
> > invocation on the remote end of an RMI INVOKE operation.
>
> That seems right, though it's possible that we might disagree about
> the meaning of "message layer semantics" and "eventual method
> invocation".
>
> In both cases, remote, application layer operations are being invoked
> over a network.
>
> > There are no real
> > differentiating factors other than nomenclature here are there?
>
> Well, it tells us that HTTP is a higher level "thing" than RMI, IIOP,
> or how SOAP is commonly used, because it provides the operations being
> invoked while the others do not. Considering how the entire Web
> services architecture is premised on it being a lower level thing, I
> think that's significant.
>
> Mark.
>

__._,_.___

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

•  Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
   
•  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
•  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

__,_._,___