Common Object Request Broker Architecture: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:08, 6 April 2023

Revision as of 04:45, 12 August 2023

Line 209:

:Through its history, CORBA has been plagued by shortcomings in poor ORB implementations. Unfortunately many of the papers criticizing CORBA as a standard are simply criticisms of a particularly bad CORBA ORB implementation.

:CORBA is a comprehensive standard with many features. Few implementations attempt to implement all of the specifications,<ref name="ACM_fall">{{cite journal |first=Michi |last=Henning |url=http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1142044 |title=The Rise and Fall of CORBA |publisher=[[Association for Computing Machinery]] |journal=[[ACM Queue]] |volume=4 |issue=5 |date=30 June 2006 |pages=28–34 |doi=10.1145/1142031.1142044 |s2cid=12103742 |access-date=15 March 2010|doi-access=free }}</ref> and initial implementations were incomplete or inadequate. As there were no requirements to provide a reference implementation, members were free to propose features which were never tested for usefulness or implementability. Implementations were further hindered by the general tendency of the standard to be verbose, and the common practice of compromising by adopting the sum of all submitted proposals, which often created APIs that were incoherent and difficult to use, even if the individual proposals were perfectly reasonable.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}}

:Robust implementations of CORBA have been very difficult to acquire in the past, but are now much easier to find. The SUN Java SDK comes with CORBA built-in. Some poorly designed implementations have been found to be complex, slow, incompatible and incomplete. Robust commercial versions began to appear but for significant cost. As good quality free implementations became available the bad commercial implementations died quickly.