From ... Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!Norway.EU.net!127.0.0.1!nobody From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: corba or sockets? Date: 30 Oct 2000 15:20:33 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3181908033332322@naggum.net> References: <3181900924130896@naggum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 972919251 15212 195.0.192.66 (30 Oct 2000 15:20:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2000 15:20:51 GMT mail-copies-to: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.lisp:2901 * Michael Livshin | do you imply that it *was* possible to come up with a better wire | protocol for CORBA as it is, or that the whole concept of "remote | procedure call" (i.e. the CORBA semantics) is not an adequate | abstraction in situations involving non-trivial network latencies? Yes, that the remote procedure call model is fundamentally flawed. It is, however, possible to do remote procedure calls intelligently, but it requires a programming language that can deal with unfinished computations and actually calculate with them for a while. This is not terribly difficult stuff, but not trivial, either. #:Erik -- Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One? -- George W. Bush