Re: [OT] CORBA/IIOP & IDL was: W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++
From: Steven T. Hatton (susudata_at_setidava.kushan.aa)
Date: 04/13/04
- Next message: Matt: "Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?"
- Previous message: Gary Labowitz: "Re: Birthday Problem"
- In reply to: Dietmar Kuehl: "Re: [OT] CORBA/IIOP & IDL was: W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++"
- Next in thread: Steven T. Hatton: "Re: [OT] CORBA/IIOP & IDL was: W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:59:02 -0400
Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
> Steven T. Hatton wrote:
>> I'm aware of some very powerful tools created with CORBA related middle
>> ware.
>
> I haven't claimed that it isn't doable (I did so myself) but it is
> definitely unnecessarily hard: you need people which have read quite a
> lot of stuff and even then mistakes are made easily and only revealed
> by thorough code reviews, at least when using C++ with CORBA.
I don't know how much I'm going to be putting into it myself. I was very
quickley getting up to speed with Java and all the web services stuff when
the Trolls put out the new Qt Book. I'd been wanting to learn C++ for
several years. I'm particularly interested in KDE related stuff. I just
dropped everything Java and put all my time into C++. It's _much_ harder
than I expected it to be.
> Nope. This is not the problem with OMG IDL/C++ binding. The problem with
> this binding is partially due to the entirely stupid approach used for
> resource maintainance which effectively makes any automated approach
> impossible:
Something tells me you weren't using Rational Rose, or a similar product. Is
that correct?
I tend to believe the IDL model for defining interfaces is potentially very
useful to C++. The IDL interfaces are almost identical to C++ headers.
I'm even considering using sed rather than an IDL tool to translate them
into C++.
> There is lots of necessary manual interaction when using the
> OMG IDL/C++ binding. And worse, the details differ depending on whether
> the argument is passed a in, out, or inout argument. As stated before:
> give it a try! It is plain horrible.
This sounds like the traditional marschaling/unmarschalling argument.
>> But the really good C++ builders
>> know how to do it right, so why should /they/ care?
>
> The fact
> that nothing happened afterwards is mainly due to the realization that
> there is no big market interested in CORBA
IIRC, they used to charge money just to look at the documentation. That was
probably a bad move when put up against the openness of Java.
> and that the person who
> was put into charge for doing the work left the committee shortly
> afterwards due to entirely unrelated reasons.
That's a shame. But it's also a significant statement. There may be parts
of CORBA which are worth resurecting on their own. I also wonder what if
any C++ technology could take the place of CORBA based application servers.
-- STH Hatton's Law: "There is only One inviolable Law" KDevelop: http://www.kdevelop.org SuSE: http://www.suse.com Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
- Next message: Matt: "Re: Is it standard and practical to use long long types?"
- Previous message: Gary Labowitz: "Re: Birthday Problem"
- In reply to: Dietmar Kuehl: "Re: [OT] CORBA/IIOP & IDL was: W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++"
- Next in thread: Steven T. Hatton: "Re: [OT] CORBA/IIOP & IDL was: W3C issue: Time to standardize the XML library for C/C++"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
