Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.object.corba
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion What is Corba used for?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Ke Jin  
View profile  
 More options May 27 2005, 9:11 pm
Newsgroups: comp.object.corba
From: "Ke Jin" <ke...@borland.com>
Date: 27 May 2005 18:11:54 -0700
Local: Fri, May 27 2005 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: What is Corba used for?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Gangadhar NPK wrote:
> But, even though business logic design doesn't talk about the physical
> location of the objects, transport etc, isn't it the case that binding
> oneself to a particular implmentor (visi / omniorb etc), does pull that
> implementation's specifics into the application ? Doesn't that make it
> a tard difficult to move between various ORBs ? Ke what do you think
> about that ?

Middleware providing low level system "transparency", and applications'
"portability" acrossing different middleware implementations are two
orthogonal concepts.

Different ORBs are implemented differently, and likely come with
various non-standard, vendor specific value added, portable or even
non-portable, features. However, almost all of them are provided
"transparently". For instance, many ORB implementations use OMG
standardized IIOP (namely, GIOP over TCP) as well as vendor specific
alternatives (such as GIOP over shared memory or solaris door) for
distributed object invocations. But this transport detail, namely
whether vendor specific, system level alternatives are used and how, is
transparent to business level applications.

Moving applications across foreign ORBs is an "portability" issue. As
said, it is orthogonal to the "transparency" concept discussed above.
Differences on "how" ORBs was implemented do not prohibit applications
to moving among them. What prohibit this kind move are differences
(usually mean syntactic and semantic differences at application level)
on "what" these ORB implemented. If your application used an
application level feature only supported by one ORB but not another, it
would have difficult to be ported from the first ORB to the second.

Regards,
Ke


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google