UI independance
Alex Barclay
alex at planet-barclay.com
Thu Feb 13 09:05:16 CST 2003
Dave Peticolas wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 19:20, Alex Barclay wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Atkins wrote:
>>One of the applications I would like to produce at some point is a
>>general ledger running on my palm. When I sync it would upload its data
>>to the gnucash engine. If we went with a raw socket interface I'd be
>>left writing the interface code. If we went with SOAP I'd be left
>>writing the XML messages. If we go with CORBA I can use the current
>>object mapping and concentrate only on my app.
>>
>>
>
>Not that I am advocating SOAP, or any other method, but this
>is a misleading statement. You might as well say 'If we go
>with CORBA, I'd be left writing the CORBA messages by
>hand'. Of course, no one would do that since you could
>use a CORBA library to do that for you. And that is precisely
>what you would do with SOAP. There are several free SOAP
>libraries available, for different languages.
>
>
I'm certainly not advocating this at all. What I'm saying is that CORBA
has a very well defined object model. Even if I had a library to
implement the message encodings I would loose all of the benefits of
that model especially with respect to things like object lifetimes. So
far I've used CORBA from C++, Smalltalk, Perl and CORBA Script - you'll
notice that C is absent from this list but I'm sure it won't be too
difficult.
Interworking is also a problem. CORBA defines bindings for many
languages where SOAP implementations vary - which to my mind puts SOAP
exactly where CORBA was before POA. No source level interoperability -
which to my mind is a huge loss. This is not a problem with COM because
that is only done by Micro$oft. On one of my last projects we dumped
Orbix and went over to ACE/TAO with very little pain entirely because
both implemented the same object model. We also did our conversion on a
piecemeal basis because there was interoperability between the two ORBs.
Alex.
More information about the gnucash-devel
mailing list