Re: More SOAP or Dampen ThyEvangelical Fires oh Disciples

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Fredrik Larsson wrote: > >I stand corrected. But that still meens SOAP is a CORBA compeditor as > >previously stated was incorrect. > > Yes and no. I believe that there will be no single way of doing things. SOAP > will just be a new different way. But it is up to us. I don't see them as > competitors but more of two different products that can work hand in hand. They are incompatable and atempt to do the same things. Every object that is written in SOAP is yet another one that is not accessable from CORBA (and visa versa). CORBA and SOAP are about making objects accessable. Having two different, incompatable standards deminishes why both exist in the first place. > > >Too much? You write an interface for your object in IDL, you run a program > >on it, and you write your object. It cant get any simpler. > > What I refer to is the extra work with creating stubs and skeletons and > setting up ORBs that is a lot of work. As I recall all of ORBs are not > compatible either. 1. What work creating stubs and skels? The orb does that for you. orbit-idl blar.idl done. :) 2. Setting them up? orbits as simple as, ./configure; make; make install which is no different then any other lib. 3. IIOP is standard. If an ORB doesnt implement it properly, then its not a true ORB. Same would go for a SOAP implementation that couldnt talk to other SOAP implementations. >