David Lloyd wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
David Lloyd wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
And of course another option is to replace JacORB with another IIOP implementation.
Jonathan tells us this is prohibitive from a resource perspective. In any case, I do not believe this would create a substantial enough improvement in performance, even if that were the only issue with going the IIOP-only route.
I don't know about the resource perspective at this point, but I know it would be a lot less than writing another distributed transactions protocol ;-) I ported the C++ and Java transaction services to pretty much every C++ or Java ORB on the planet by 2005.
As to performance? That really depends what we're trying to achieve and when. It's an option. Whether it's the right option in the long term and for all use cases, I don't think anyone can say precisely at this point.
Okay, well we've proposed more than once to move off of JacORB. I'd be in favor for sure. But I think that's a peripheral topic at this point.
I'm not so sure it is. If moving off it to, say, the one in the JDK gives us better performance, then this could well be a case where "good enough" is "good enough", at least for AS 7.x. Longer term is obviously different. Anyway, no decisions at this point, but good to have all of the options available.