On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Jonathan Biggar <jon@biggar.org> wrote:
Doesn't have to be CORBA. Just OO middleware that's "inspired" by CORBA.
You're talking about a couple of orders of magnitude more work to get something going, compared to the pretty much complete implementation I'm offering.
Okay.
People need to recognize that developing good transparent OO invocation middleware is far from trivial. It's a complex problem, and complex problems need relatively complex solutions.
You're preaching to the choir. I worked on a CORBA-based middleware product for *many* years. Even contributed in very small ways (bug patches) to TAO. Though I haven't given up hope on building something that is simple and elegant to use. Many things, like the NameService spec, can be wrapped in a utility
class that makes it quite easy to use and avoids the klunkiness.
Been there too. I just don't want another "pretty" wrapper around something I find fundamentally flawed. But that's my opinion, and is not to say that others won't find it useful, or desirable. No, but don't trivialize how long it takes to get to butt-kicking stage. :) I understand the scope and magnitude. I also posit that if you build something on top of CORBA, you'll never get to the butt-kicking stage. Just my opinion from having squandered years of my life in the attempt. .
My gut feeling is that changing CORBA in any but superficial ways will be
Yes. In fact I know one of the developers quite well.
I would be much happier w/ something built on an architecture similar to ICE. In a nutshell, when I need CORBA, I use TAO. But I really want something else. Jon