[Accessibility] PROPOSAL: Accessible Document
Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Wed May 4 02:22:37 PDT 2005
Harald Fernengel wrote:
>On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:54, Bill Haneman wrote:
>>On the GNOME platform it includes powerful performance enhancements
>>which offer more than an order of magnitude over standard CORBA wire
>>transport, so it aggressively tackles performance considerations as
>>well. It is also a highly extensible API.
>I thought the consensus was that CORBA is the necessary evil we chose because
>there is already an implementation. Even with all the "powerful performance
>enhancement" CORBA is still a magnitute slower than most other IPC
I don't believe this is true. It's certainly _slower_ than xmlrpc
(which I don't recommend), and I am not aware of any other IPC
mechanisms which are both cross-platform, object-oriented/extensible,
network-transparent, and which outperform CORBA.
>I'm currently fighting hard to sell our product managers the idea that we have
>to support a technology which most other vendors abandoned and most of our
>programmers don't understand even with training (provided they manage to
>install it successfully).
I think this is a very unfair characterization - and an inaccurate one
("...most other vendors abandoned").
>Sorry if that sounded a bit harsh but I think that pro-only CORBA messages are
>a bit counter-productive.
I have yet to see an alternative that meets all our needs. I agree that
one is desirable, perhaps DBUS will someday be that alternative.
>Accessibility mailing list
>Accessibility at mail.freestandards.org
More information about the Accessibility