From: Jeff Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rickard �berg [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> I believe you are missing the point. I am not arguing
> whether IIOP is a bad protocol or not. In fact, even
> if everything worked perfectly with IIOP, i.e. security
> context propagation was defined and all that, I think
> it would be a mistake to use it. IIOP as such is
> irrelevant in the case I am making.
>
> What I am opposed to is the general approach to the
> problem. The problem is how to do multi-vendor server
> interoperability. As I have, in great detail, explained
> there are (at least) two possible solutions. One is to
> choose a wire-protocol. One is to choose an API-based
> solution. The case I made was that regardless of the
> wire-protocol chosen, it is a worse solution than the
> second one. I have clearly explained why I think so,
> and will not re-iterate.
Now I'm confused. How does specifying the communication API guarantee that
two implementers of the same API will be able to talk?
I think what's missing from this discussion is the (obvious?) fact
that to get different applications to talk to each other, they
either have to agree on the protocol or they have to agree to
choose from a specific set of communication implementations
that are known to work together.
This usually means that standardizing on the API level implies
using the same implementation of that API in all your applications.
If it weren't for this small disadvantage, even TCP/IP could be an
API standard :-)
_
Mats Lofkvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
