Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 18 of 18

Thread: "Convenience Over Correctness" - The Case Against RPC

  1. #16
    michi's Avatar
    michi is offline Registered User
    Name: Michi Henning
    Organization: Triodia Technologies
    Project: I have a passing interest in Ice :-)
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by ganzuoni View Post
    And it is still think it is the only alternative to other "cool" frameworks
    Don't forget that, in the end, you wrote a wonderful book on that topic. With Steve Vinoski
    Right, I haven't forgotten that. CORBA was the best thing going at the time. But CORBA got worse over time instead of better, and it took years of experience and learning to realize how all of the CORBA problems relentlessly added up to something that was very hard to use. (The run-away standards process didn't help either. I wrote about this at length in The Rise And Fall Of CORBA.)

    As usual, the problem is not the gun but the man behind it.
    I bet that it is possible to find a lot of people out there that can make disasters even with ICE.
    That is no doubt correct. Ice is a powerful tool and, as with any powerful tool, there are ways to use it incorrectly. Ice makes things as easy and efficient as possible, but that doesn't mean that it guarantees a successful distributed system. That still takes experience, insight, good design, and good implementation.

    As the old saying goes, "a good programmer can write FORTRAN in any language..."

    Cheers,

    Michi.

  2. #17
    ganzuoni is offline Registered User
    Name: Guido Anzuoni
    Organization: Individual
    Project: No specific project
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by michi View Post
    Right, I haven't forgotten that. CORBA was the best thing going at the time. But CORBA got worse over time instead of better, and it took years of experience and learning to realize how all of the CORBA problems relentlessly added up to something that was very hard to use. (The run-away standards process didn't help either. I wrote about this at length in The Rise And Fall Of CORBA.)
    Got it !!
    I still remember when I was a happy Orbacus user and I was asking for a mean to let the application "register" and "deregister" objects in the ORB (it was in the 2.0 old days) and Matthew suggested the reading of a "new" proposal from Douglas Schmidt.....
    Apart from the well-described complications, POA concept is a corner stone for what a DOC framework should offer on the server-side.
    Client-side portable layer is another bright example of the good things CORBA has put on the table.
    These concepts are totally absent in SOAP-based specs and the marvelous J2EE.
    And no one seems to care about....

    Guido.
    Guido Anzuoni
    Company: Individual
    (http://www.objectmagic.org)
    No specific project

  3. #18
    kwaclaw is offline Registered User
    Name: Karl Waclawek
    Organization: Personal
    Project: Whiteboard application
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Oshawa, Canada
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by michi View Post
    Just because the web is good for distributed computing with a human at one end of the connection does not mean that it also is good for distributed computing with computers at both ends of the connection. As far as I can see, no-one has ever really examined why the web is as successful as it is, and how that might affect distributed computing between computers, instead of between humans and computers...
    I think that is a crucial observation.
    The web/REST architecture might work if the computers on both end had some "artificial intelligence" that takes all kinds of context into account (incl. situation, cultural, ...) in order to interpret the incoming message unambiguously.

    The error in the REST thinking is that the bar for that AI is so low that it is practical to achieve today. In addition, the processing overhead would mean that such messages should be very high level and of coarse granularity (just like human communication), which they not always are.

    I do actually think that at some point we may have such style of computer to computer communications, but they will in part be used to dynamically establish and delegate to low level, strongly typed and efficient communications that for instance ICE provides.

    Karl
    Karl Waclawek

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 07:32 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 10:53 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 06:15 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 11:23 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2004, 08:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •