On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 22:26 +0000, Rob Taylor wrote: > Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > > Whether or not the object is local (in-process) or not is irrelevant. > > Whether or not the method call is sync or async is also irrelevant. It's > > a method call, pure and simple. DBus itself even calls them method > > calls. All you're doing by avoiding that in the IDL is making us learn > > and remember yet another confusing and incompatible syntax. > > Wow. No. > > That was the main insanity of CORBA. Hiding that something is IPC > results in you thinking things are working one way when in fact they're > working completely differently and subject to a load of unexpected > failure modes. > > Other things to consider here is that hiding IPC can also result in > hugely inefficient IPC because you end up designing a pretty API rather > than efficient IPC. > > I could rant at length here about the various benefits of CORBA vs > message bus. But suffice to say hiding that there's a message bus means > you end up with CORBA again and all the attendant problems.
I very very much agree. And I had to fight these CORBA problems for many years maintaining a bonobo based application. Please learn from history and don't fuck up our platform again. This should be required reading for everyone that ever touches IPC: http://research.sun.com/techrep/1994/abstract-29.html Its as true today as it was when it was written (1994!). This is also a nice starting point for similar ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
