On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Even if the final conclusion is to not use CORBA, I would suggest that
> organizing the set of "published functions" in IDL form may be very useful
> in establishing what functions the GnuCash server should accept as calls.
>
> By the way, supposing IDL proves to _not_ be the answer, I would
> _strongly_ urge that there be some sort of automated scheme for
> constructing the relevant interface code, ideally as an extension of
> G-Wrap, so that it's not just all constructed haphazardly by hand.
Every RPC mechanism worth its salt has an IDL of some kind.
> _Unlike_ CORBA, XML/SOAP really only provides a generic messaging
> system. You're left with routing messages and interpreting them.
> There's no equivalent to IDL; the nearest thing _maybe_ being an
> XML DTD.
See my last comment :-)
> By the way, SOAP/HTTP/XML is _not_ designed to be fast; it transfers
> around XML _as text_, and has to parse XML continually. IIOP is a real
> "barn-burner fast" protocol compared to that...
Quite. Cue back to the XML-vs-binary-format debate!
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
