3 ms·

Is it just me or does it look like CORBA?

• lucozade 4y ago
  Doesn't appear to have an IDL nor does it appear to generate proxies on the client side. At least from a cursory reading. But I do agree that it appears to be another in a long line of remote object protocols. It's not obvious why this will succeed where the others haven't as it appears to have the same flaws but with some extra ones of its own e.g the client doesn't seem to type the remote method calls. Would have been nice to have some argumentation as to why it won't crash and burn like its predecessors but I'm guessing that either the authors aren't aware of them or they don't believe their clients will be.
• glaucopacheco 4y ago
  Corba has two major flaws: complexity and performance. The Cute server enables developers to use what they already know (Qt's signals and slots) to communicate over a network transparently. Clients interact with remote signals and slots as if they were local. The signals and slots mechanism provided by Qt fits perfectly as a communication protocol. For example, no polling is necessary on the client-side with remote signals. Also, the Cute server uses epoll-based event dispatchers (with Qt, custom event dispatchers inherit the QAbstractEventDispatcher class) to provide high-performance network data processing while supporting the signals and slots mechanism. With the Cute server and Cute client SDKs, instead of creating/parsing messages and interacting with a server/clients, developers only have to write QObject-derived classes and establish remote signal-slot connections or call remote slots directly to communicate over a network.