3 ms·

CORBA is the best protocol I ever dealt with. Strong contractual semantics, exceptions, interface definitions. Spiced with transparent compression, encryption a

CORBA is the best protocol I ever dealt with. Strong contractual semantics, exceptions, interface definitions. Spiced with transparent compression, encryption and bi-directional communication. All those goodies were already available 12 years ago. The only downside - it required a reliable and precise implementation that took a lot of efforts. I always used IIOP.NET for most of my gigs and it was excellent. I also ended up as an active IIOP.NET contributor. CORBA ORB implementation was a fine art a few could grasp. And this was the biggest drawback - the standard was (and is) excellent, but most implementations tend to be complex and shaky. I still actively use CORBA. The server usually offers two kind of endpoints: REST for third-party integrations (which are usually naive and simplistic), and CORBA for the system itself. I've built nice things with such architecture that involved worldwide deployments including embedded hardware. I am very proud of my involvement and the fact that I could help to improve the everyday routine for many people worldwide.

arithma 9y ago
Thanks for this input. I always love reading things things that get me excited to try and look into stuff I have previously discarded for probably "popular" opinion.
todd8 9y ago
I was somewhat involved with CORBA in its early days. It had some very smart people driving it. It was derived from work already being done by the large companies like IBM, DEC, Apollo, Sun, HP, and Microsoft. But CORBA was haunted by a key principle that limited its influence. Unlike the IP protocol stacks, which are layered from the lowest wire protocols on up to the highest layers, CORBA dictated the highest level protocols and didn't address the lower level protocols. Different CORBA implementations couldn't talk to each other; consequently, CORBA didn't work for my company because we were was trying to design a product that could work across heterogeneous networks of workstations and servers. If the CORBA folks were so smart (and they were), how could this happen? Why didn't they design the original CORBA protocols from say UDP or TCP on up? The CORBA members were all from different companies, and all had different independent products. There was fierce competition in this space so it was impossible for the members of CORBA to agree on the low level networking protocols because doing so would harm some companies' product lines while benefiting an others.

arithma 9y ago

Thanks for this input. I always love reading things things that get me excited to try and look into stuff I have previously discarded for probably "popular" opinion.

todd8 9y ago

I was somewhat involved with CORBA in its early days. It had some very smart people driving it. It was derived from work already being done by the large companies like IBM, DEC, Apollo, Sun, HP, and Microsoft. But CORBA was haunted by a key principle that limited its influence. Unlike the IP protocol stacks, which are layered from the lowest wire protocols on up to the highest layers, CORBA dictated the highest level protocols and didn't address the lower level protocols. Different CORBA implementations couldn't talk to each other; consequently, CORBA didn't work for my company because we were was trying to design a product that could work across heterogeneous networks of workstations and servers. If the CORBA folks were so smart (and they were), how could this happen? Why didn't they design the original CORBA protocols from say UDP or TCP on up? The CORBA members were all from different companies, and all had different independent products. There was fierce competition in this space so it was impossible for the members of CORBA to agree on the low level networking protocols because doing so would harm some companies' product lines while benefiting an others.