tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anil K. Vijendran" <Anil.Vijend...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] "Relayed" Apache API Project
Date Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:40:08 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:

> IIOP is binary :-) Probably too binary, and it support straight TCP/IP (
> plus unix sockets, etc). I just hate re-inventing the wheel, but I agree
> IIOP is probably too complex.

I'd like us to consider CORBA, despite its complexity. If we are using
CORBA, I'm not too sure why we need to be worried about the complexity of
the IIOP implementation (unless there's a performance issue there). 

I have implemented IIOP 1.0/1.1 and various other ORB stuff and I believe
there is not much intrinsic in the protocol itself that would make it a
performance bottleneck -- implementations might be screwed up, though. 

The advantage of using something like CORBA is that it gives a whole lot
of freedom -- in terms of languages (API is in IDL), no co-location
constraints, ample opportunities for local optimizations (I suspect almost
every ORB does some good short-circuiting for "RPC" between objects that
are local) etc. 

As far as I can remember, the situation with IIOP was pay for what you 
use. If you use the dynamic subsystem (DII/DSI), typecode-based
marshalling/unmarshalling or recently Objects-by-Value (with fragmentation
and all that nonsense), then your roundtrip perf could go out the window.
But all we need it is for simple RPC. In fact given that IIOP is a
backward compatible protocol; we can just pick some ORB out there that
just supports 1.0!

One thing I'd like ask around here is: what has the experience been with
mod_corba and ORBit? 


--
Peace, Anil +<:-)




Mime
View raw message