| |
 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer - Object (Corba) » How to make CORBA cool for java?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I like CORBA. I really do. But it is a sad fact that most other people
don't seem to, apart from maybe the people that hang out here. So I
was wondering, what can be done to make CORBA more appealing for java
programmers? I think there is nothing that can be done for C++. The
language binding is just too awful. That's way projects like ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/) were started. But the binding is ok for java.
Despite this, I see java projects that started with CORBA are all
trying to move away from it. Sometimes they move to JMS solutions
instead and they get all sorts of performance problems as a result.
CORBA offers all sorts of services that help with enterprise
solutions, such as messaging, load balancing, various COS services etc
etc. And the performance is quite respectable. You just don't get this
with RMI. But the complaints I hear most often are that CORBA skills
are hard to find, it is obscure (i.e. not mainstream) and developers
don't want to learn it due to lack of demand. What can be done?
Regards,
Andrew Marlow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob... |
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I started a similar discussion a while back that might be useful:
http://tinyurl.com/69uzbd
I think making the CORBA bindings blend better with the language would
be a big help (enums (mapped by enum value rather than ordinal),
better type safe collection support rather than arrays, annotations in
IDL, eliminate the ugly method naming, java beans conventions for
attributes rather than public variables, etc.).
I've been looking at the value objects recently as way to serialize
Java object graphs (JPA objects) and it gets messy pretty fast
especially if you have lazy loaded hibernate persistent lists in the
mix or are referencing Java classes such as Lists and Sets. (But, that
isn't the complete fault of CORBA; the 3 tier thick client
architecture hasn't been addressed very well by the new JPA or
Hibernate specs or lazy object loading is a challenging to do right
over the network.)
I think some good lessons could be gleaned from the JAXB and
HyperJaxB-3 projects as well as fairly clean way to serialize object
graphs without much intrusion with your value objects, but with lots
of flexibility if you want by leveraging the custom mapping support
(you can map any XML type into any Java type; the same could be done
for IDL as well).
Ideally, the value objects could be mapped exactly as you wished into
your object model cleanly and optional parameters such as JPA mappings
could be specified in the IDL as well so that there is a single source
definition of your value objects (similar to hyperjaxb3's strategy
perhaps.)
On Nov 21, 2:32 am, marlow.and... at (no spam) googlemail.com wrote:
Quote: I like CORBA. I really do. But it is a sad fact that most other people
don't seem to, apart from maybe the people that hang out here. So I
was wondering, what can be done to make CORBA more appealing for java
programmers? I think there is nothing that can be done for C++. The
language binding is just too awful. That's way projects like ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/) were started. But the binding is ok for java.
Despite this, I see java projects that started with CORBA are all
trying to move away from it. Sometimes they move to JMS solutions
instead and they get all sorts of performance problems as a result.
CORBA offers all sorts of services that help with enterprise
solutions, such as messaging, load balancing, various COS services etc
etc. And the performance is quite respectable. You just don't get this
with RMI. But the complaints I hear most often are that CORBA skills
are hard to find, it is obscure (i.e. not mainstream) and developers
don't want to learn it due to lack of demand. What can be done?
Regards,
Andrew Marlow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack... |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You have very well mentioned few of the strengths of CORBA.
To start making CORBA more popular with JAVA at least we need a decent
freeware IDE for CORBA-JAVA IDE.
Also one of the most common argument against CORBA is its performance.
The performance of commercial ORBs like ORBexpress which can send data
with speed of raw sockets, and others have to be highlighted to
dispel the common impression that CORBA is bulky and low performing.
regards,
James B.
On Nov 21, 1:32 pm, marlow.and... at (no spam) googlemail.com wrote:
Quote: I like CORBA. I really do. But it is a sad fact that most other people
don't seem to, apart from maybe the people that hang out here. So I
was wondering, what can be done to make CORBA more appealing for java
programmers? I think there is nothing that can be done for C++. The
language binding is just too awful. That's way projects like ICE
(http://www.zeroc.com/) were started. But the binding is ok for java.
Despite this, I see java projects that started with CORBA are all
trying to move away from it. Sometimes they move to JMS solutions
instead and they get all sorts of performance problems as a result.
CORBA offers all sorts of services that help with enterprise
solutions, such as messaging, load balancing, various COS services etc
etc. And the performance is quite respectable. You just don't get this
with RMI. But the complaints I hear most often are that CORBA skills
are hard to find, it is obscure (i.e. not mainstream) and developers
don't want to learn it due to lack of demand. What can be done?
Regards,
Andrew Marlow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob... |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Dec 11, 12:13 am, Jack <Jack.But... at (no spam) invariantlogic.com> wrote:
Quote: You have very well mentioned few of the strengths of CORBA.
To start making CORBA more popular with JAVA at least we need a decent
freeware IDE for CORBA-JAVA IDE.
That's true. I did notice that IONA released an open-source CORBA plug-
in for Eclipse. There used to be a good CORBA plug-in for NetBeans as
well, that should be resurrected.
Quote: Also one of the most common argument against CORBA is its performance.
The performance of commercial ORBs like ORBexpress which can send data
with speed of raw sockets, and others have to be highlighted to
dispel the common impression that CORBA is bulky and low performing.
Good point.
I'm not sure why people complain about the performance of CORBA
especially as compared to web services. The folklore can be dispelled
with just a quick review of this website:
http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/QoS/compare/dist_oo_compare_ipc.html
Rob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 Dec, 12:39, Rob <rrr6... at (no spam) futuretek.com> wrote:
Quote: I'm not sure why people complain about the performance of CORBA
especially as compared to web services. The folklore can be dispelled
with just a quick review of this website:http://www.atl.external.lmco.com/projects/QoS/compare/dist_oo_compare...
Rob
I think the main objection is they cannot find the developers with the
skills. I am working on a project which is a rewrite of an old system
they have. The old system uses CORBA. The new one will not, it will
use WDSL instead. I think this is a pity. The main reason they give is
that CORBA has become niche and the skills are expensive and hard to
find.
-Andrew Marlow |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm
|
|