Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture?

[Derek Atkins]

Aren't guaranteed to be one-way, or aren't guaranteed to make
it to the other side?

-derek

<mike.perik@bankofamerica.com> writes:

> CORBA oneway calls are not guaranteed.
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Jonathan Blandford [SMTP:jrb@redhat.com]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:28 PM
> > To:	Derek Atkins
> > Cc:	Rob Browning; gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
> > Subject:	Re: Trial Balloon: A new DataStore Architecture?
> > 
> > 
> > <delurk>
> > 
> > Hi Derek,
> > 
> > While I'm hardly a CORBA expert, I'd like to reply to some of these
> > comments.
> > 
> > Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > 
> > > Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On the data communication side, there's also CORBA to consider.
> > > 
> > > I personally dislike CORBA.  My reasoning is two-fold:
> > > 
> > > 	1) Synchronous RPC is BAD (in many cases).
> > > 
> > > 	2) CORBA tries to push protocol design onto programmers.. But
> > >            good programmers are not necessarily good protocol
> > >            designers (and vice-versa).
> > > 
> > > A real-world example of this: M$ Outlook requires 84 RPC calls to open
> > > a mail folder.  If your mail server is a few hundred miles away, it
> > > can take, literally, several SECONDS in order to open it.  Why?  The
> > > program has to pause and wait for each RPC to finish before it can
> > > make the next request, and the transmission delay time can be
> > > relatively large in a widely-distributed network.
> > 
> > 84 RPC calls?  That's pretty heavy, regardless of the protocol or
> > mechanism.  But that aside, CORBA has the oneway directive that lets you
> > send asynchronous requests.
> > 
> > > A real protcol would let you send multiple requests consecutively and
> > > let the responses come asynchronously.  Unfortunately CORBA does not
> > > let you do this.
> > 
> > Yes it can.  You can send multiple oneway requests, and let the remote
> > object send oneway replies back.
> > 
> > > Another potential problem is the security of CORBA.. Namely, there is
> > > none.:) I would personally insist on data encryption and strong
> > > (kerberos-level or greater) user authentication.
> > 
> > I'd argue that writing my own protocol is less secure, as there's more
> > complexity in the code, more room for error, it's one more dependency on
> > the system etc. etc.  At least with ORBit, there are a number of other
> > people using it.  Additionally, ORBit 2.0 has support for SSL built in.
> > Authentication is a separate kettle of fish, and needs addressing
> > independent of the protocol used.
> > 
> > > Frankly, I don't think that designing a real protocol would be
> > > difficult.  I also don't think it needs to happen right away.  I think
> > > we can architect and implement the data model using local storage
> > > before designing the network protocol.  At least a set of access
> > > requirements should come first.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Jonathan
> > 
> > </delurk>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnucash-devel mailing list
> > gnucash-devel@lists.gnumatic.com
> > http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/      PP-ASEL      N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available