Re: GNOME CVS: gnome-core mmclouglin
- From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
- To: gnome-hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, gnome-components-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME CVS: gnome-core mmclouglin
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 02:29:42 +1100
<quote who="Ross Golder">
> Isn't that the arena of protocols like LDAP?
> Isn't this the arena of protocols like SNMP?
That was Maciej's point, I believe. :)
> > Anyway, while the idea of remote components is interesting, in practice
> > the network is _not_ transparent. It has high latency, it has low
> > bandwidth, and it goes down all the time. To get robustness and decent
> > performance, you are better off using protocols that can cope with this
> > non-idea behavior.
> ORBit2 seems to have this sussed, AFAICS. People that don't require
> network components would just use unix domain sockets.
This makes ORBit2 very pretty. :)
> > GNOME should aim to make it easier to develop networked client-server
> > applications instead of relying on heavyweight RPC or remote display
> > hacks. Support for SOAP and associated protocols is a step in the right
> > direction.
> Well, there is soup, for applications that ought to use it, but I don't
> think SOAP is a one-size-fits-all solution.
I think the argument here is essentially about our equivalent to DCOM. Do we
really want to use Bonobo like DCOM, or do we want to provide Bonobo
interfaces to real, domain optimal, client-server protocols (and the heavily
tested libraries that impliment them)?
You're welcome to wander off with Luke Leighton believing RPC/DCE is the
bees knees. :)
[ I think the question of Internet-wide service protocols like SOAP and
XML-RPC is a different kettle of fish; they're necessary, but on a different
playing field to Bonobo or existing client/server protocol standards. ]
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
] [Thread Prev