Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst toolsmiths se>]

Phil Dawes wrote:

> I'd like to venture the following opinions:
>
> 1) We don't need COM. CORBA replaces COM. There is NOTHING you can do in
> com that you can't do with corba. (I have yet to be proven wrong on
> this. Please feel free flame :-).

Ill bite on this one ;-)
Corba has currently on flaw and that is that you need an ORB beween objects
which means a gross overhead when doing interprocess call beween object.
There are some work going on with Collocation - corba between objects in same
adress space -
but the Corba spec says that the call arguments should be deliverd to the orb
before they are
sent to the callee.
This means that Corba is many times slower than a COM call which is the same as a
c++ virtual call.

You need a proxy which means that the size of an object grows.

Not all object are therefore good candidates for Corba.Smaller and faster objects
can be more efficiently
implemented in COM.

I myself is working in a model i call GCOM where the DCOM part is replaced Corba
but
the Component Binary interface is still there and also the dynamic class/library
loading facilities.
So its a combination of Corba with selected part of COM core.

See first diagram for an overview.
<http://www.toolsmiths.se/components/html/library.html>

/anders