On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > investigate using ONC RPC as the marshalling system, which is much
> > less overhead than CORBA,
>
> Its not obvious to me that any RPC has lower overhead than corba.
> I'm tempted to beleive the opposite.
No way - RPC is far more lightweight than CORBA.
> Besides, remember that corba was invented to solve many of the evils
> and lack of function that rpc didn't/couldn't do.
Not true... CORBA is just RPC with an object model intestead of a
procedural model. Which is a high level distinction. The problem is that
IIOP is a much more complex protocol than ONC RPC, and harder to manage,
which is what makes ORBs bloated.
> > have ONC RPC available) so we wont have to worry about portability.
>
> all platforms have corba as well.
Mine doesn't - I had to install it from a package on NetBSD.
> > obtain the lists of accounts, groups, etc. And we also need to
> > discuss the data write APIs, and data cache conherency (events &
> > notifications?)
>
> This is one reason I nominated corba. Many (but not all) of the api
> questions melt away, with an 'obvious' answer.
Same with RPC, though... what do you perceive as the differences between
CORBA and RPC?
> Note events & notifications should work in corba, & I don't know how
> to do them with RPC, except as polls.
Callbacks are pretty standard. How would you do them in CORBA?
> --linas
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
