Content deleted Content added
m rm spare number |
Alistair1978 (talk | contribs) m →Problems and criticism: fmt |
||
Line 207:
;Location transparency
:CORBA's notion of ___location transparency has been criticized; that is, that objects residing in the same [[address space]] and accessible with a simple [[function call]] are treated the same as objects residing elsewhere (different processes on the same machine, or different machines). This is a fundamental design flaw,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Waldo|first=Jim|author2=Geoff Wyant |author3=Ann Wollrath |author4=Sam Kendall |title=A Note on Distributed Computing|journal=Sun Microsystem Laboratories|date=November 1994|url=http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2010/cs4210_fall/papers/smli_tr-94-29.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221010/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2010/cs4210_fall/papers/smli_tr-94-29.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-10 |url-status=live|access-date=4 November 2013}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=November 2017}} as it makes all object access as complex as the most complex case (i.e., remote network call with a wide class of failures that are not possible in local calls). It also hides the inescapable differences between the two classes, making it impossible for applications to select an appropriate use strategy (that is, a call with 1 [[µs]] latency and guaranteed return will be used very differently from a call with
;Design and process deficiencies
:The creation of the CORBA standard is also often cited for its process of [[design by committee]]. There was no process to arbitrate between conflicting proposals or to decide on the hierarchy of problems to tackle. Thus the standard was created by taking a union of the features in all proposals with no regard to their coherence.<ref name="ACM_fall"/> This made the specification complex, expensive to implement entirely, and often ambiguous.
| |||