httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From cos...@eng.sun.com
Subject Re: [Proposal] "Relayed" Apache API Project
Date Sun, 06 Feb 2000 08:47:45 GMT
> >I know almost nothing about Corba so I can't really say anything here.
> >But if we remove all the Corba-ish stuff from the orb and use IIOP like
> >we use AJP today, I don't think it's a huge issue.
> 
> Corba is nothing without the compiled IDL interfaces and object ids.
> Using IIOP to transmit a fixed subset will simply add overhead to
> whatever it is that you are sending -- eventually it will encounter

The point is that IIOP is not _so_ complex as a protocol, i.e. CDR is not 
the worst marshaling and it's almost identical with what AJP does ( with
the difference that it supports more data types - with the added
complexity).

Same for GIOP -  it may have a header that is too long, but it doesn't add
so much overhead ( vs. AJP or another protocol we might invent over
night).

Probably it's a bad ideea to try to turn apache into a ORB or to expect
interoperability, but instead of inventing our own protocol we might just
use some existing one, and maybe we can achieve some minimal
interoperability. 
I don't think the problems are so bad on trivial method calls, with string
parameters. 

Regarding IDL, it will be a good ideea to at least define the interfaces
we want to expose ( and IDL is not too bad for that). ( that doesn't mean
to use stubs and all the heavy CORBA, just to have a documented and clear
set of interfaces separated from the protocol instead of defining the API
as a part of the protocol ). 

The result will be slower than AJP or any other protocol, but the
difference will not be very big, and on long term it will be easier to
maintain and develop it.

( it's interesting to read about KDE and corba, I think it's a very
interesting experiment !)

Costin


Mime
View raw message