[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CORBA vs. XML (was: Re: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb)
- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- To: Brendan Macmillan <bren@mail.csse.monash.edu.au>,xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:34:47 -0700
>Has anyone published a point-by-point comparison between CORBA and
>SOAP/XML-RPC?
You could probably consider SOAP and CORBA as complimentary. SOAP to
IIOP might be a better comparison. The three "big" object server models
out there have been CORBA, EJB, and COM+ -- these three use IIOP, RMI,
and DCOM respectively as the primary method to pass information to and
from objects. Now that SOAP is on the scene; CORBA, EJB and COM+ don't
go away, they just have another way to pass information to and from
objects. In fact, before SOAP, there were many ways to get these three
different worlds to interoperate -- the difference with SOAP is that the
interop layer is based on XML, supposedly easier to implement than
something like an RMI/DCOM bridge, and so on. For example, if I have
some objects written in CORBA that provide some service, I no longer
have to convince all of my customers to install an IIOP communication
layer. With SOAP, the layer that calls my CORBA object could be as
simple as a UNIX bash script that pipes some text through netcat. So I
think of SOAP as being a universal IIOP/RMI/DCOM substitute that mere
mortals can type by hand.