COM/CORBA/DCOP (was: Hello people. I have some questions)
Martin von Loewis
loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de
Tue Sep 4 11:25:09 CEST 2001
Duncan Grisby <dgrisby at uk.research.att.com> writes:
> There's nothing inherently slow about C++ ORBs. MICO was never
> designed for performance -- indeed its stated design goal is code
> clarity and wide feature range at the expense of performance. Why the
> KDE people didn't pick one of the better-performing C++ ORBs, I don't
I've heard various stories of why KDE stopped using CORBA; it being
too slow was just one reason. Other reported problems are:
- all client-server interaction was across address spaces, ie. there
was no good support for in-process servers.
- when a client broke down, it was difficult to garbage-collect the
servers, so they had many stray processes.
- it was perceived as being difficult to use by application developers.
IMO, this was partially due to KDE offering wrapper libraries around
common interfaces, for convenience. Thus, and application developer
had many different ways to achieve the same effect, due to the layers
More information about the Python-list