"Jon M. Taylor" wrote:
> > Hmm. I don't know whether that is of *any* relevance. But I'm studying the
> > CORBA architecture, especially its historical evolution. CORBA is a middleware
> > architecture to provide a set of 'services', encapsulating all the nasty details
> > of OS dependence, transport protocols, etc.
> > The more CORBA evolves, the more it becomes clear that users might want to
>explicitely
> > control low level features, such as messaging strategies, concurrency strategies,
>etc.
> > Therefor, there are more and more specifications added to CORBA which allow to
> > control these features in terms of 'policies', 'interceptors' (some sophisticated
> > form of callbacks), etc.
>
> CORBA is also slow - WAY too slow for a system layer such as GGI.
> We are avoiding C++ altogether because of performance issues, so CORBA
> seems to be out |->.
nah, you totally misunderstood me. I'm definitely not suggesting that you use CORBA.
What should that be good for ? Rather, I'm thinking about the architectural
similarities,
*beside* all the differences. As I said, in both cases you have to insulate some
implementation
specific stuff (or in GGI h/w specific stuff), yet allow control over some of them
through
a unified set of 'properties', 'interceptors', etc.
So, all I'm thinking about is whether GGI could be extended in such a way that it
presents
in some form a set of strategy choices to the user, and let him decide which to use.
That can be through a set of flags or whatever means.
Regards, Stefan
_______________________________________________________
Stefan Seefeld
Departement de Physique
Universite de Montreal
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
