This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Servant (CORBA) page were merged into Common Object Request Broker Architecture. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2016-02-13) |
Modification note (7/1/2003)
I just thought I'd clear this up to avoid a mod-war. IDL stands for Interface Definition Language, *not* Interface "Description" Language. It was recently changed incorrectly to the latter. I've put it back the way that it was. See the CORBA spec p 3-1.
(Derek)
I noticed that someone broke my change above when doing some edits. I've re-edited it so that it is now correct once more.
(Derek)
According to [Douglas Comer]'s Book Computer Networks and Internets with Internet Applications, 4/e, both uses of the term IDL when talking about RPC stuff are valid. Subwy ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick Stavros ( talk) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) OMG has forked the IDL specification. The original IDL which is part of the CORBA specification remains "as-is" and untouched. The same baseline has been lifted from the CORBA specification and is available as a stand alone specification referred to as IDL 3.5.
This was done in order that IDL be allowed to evolve independently from CORBA with the caveat that the support for CORBA not be broken.
I propose that the OMG IDL link in the disambiguation page be changed to point to a new wiki page on 'OMG IDL' the stand alone IDL and that a link be placed into the new page back to this page.
IDL is now an integral part of many other OMG specifications and a new version 4.0 is expected soon.
68.167.249.197 23:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC): I'd suggest that it is standard practice to have the main article body for CORBA/Common object request broker architecture to be under the fully expanded version of the name (cf. Remote procedure call/ RPC, and File transfer protocol/ FTP to name two examples).
68.167.249.197 00:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): One good standard practice within wikipedia is to not disambiguate misspellings. I agree that this is a good guideline to follow. As I also note at Talk:COBRA, I would contend that COBRA vs. CORBA is a case where the exception proves the rule. This is a case of two five-letter acronyms, which is unusual. For two acronyms of that length (and, to get perhaps overly analytical about it, the fact that B and R are both typed by the left index finger on a QWERTY keyboard), isn't a reasonable to anticipate our audience would appreciate such a disambiguation here? I would never advocate disambiguation for TLAs. but this seems a case where a good rule has a reasonable exception.
Wasn't KDE using CORBA and then dropped it? 81.151.193.21 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. What are these supposed to indicate? Why are they not defined? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo 01:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Information about the current status of CORBA is needed. What alternatives are there? Is it evolving? Are there new developments that use CORBA?
References
Is the VMCID really important enough to deserve an article? For that matter, is it even worthwhile to merge into the CORBA article? Wikipedia isn't a comprehensive reference guide for CORBA. That's what the CORBA specs are for. -- Whpq 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The language of these sections seems more like an internet flame war than an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.25.80.243 ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
The tone needs to be made more neutral and more examples of these supposed failures/short comings are needed; otherwise the criticism is really unsubstantiated.
FYI - I altered the language to be a bit more neutral (if that's possible for me to do) however I did not add any more references, etc. Please give feedback on whether improvement or detriment... seaneparker 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the language is in the past tense. This makes it sound like CORBA is no longer in use. 194.72.110.12 ( talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)jac
I'm not sure where a link to National Transportation Communications for Intelligent Transportation System Protocol (NTCIP) would fit into this article, if anywhere. NTCIP offers CORBA as one of two possible choices for an application layer protocol. Is there a more appropriate listing for standards or other products that make use of CORBA? Squideshi 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"(Red Hat Linux delivers with the GNOME UI system, which has its IPC built on CORBA.)"
In addition to being grammatically unsound on several levels, this sentence is difficult to understand . . . and misleading at best. Red Hat neither engineered nor is the maintainer of GTK+ ("the GNOME UI system"). I'm looking to move/modify this, but I'd like some input on what the original intent was. Was the author merely confused as to Red Hat's responsibilities and what GTK+ is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a code example in one of the languages where the binding is relatively standard, e.g. Java of how CORBA is used would be helpful. Since I don't know that much about how CORBA is used, I don't actually know if that makes sense, but if it does, an example should definitely be in the article. Subwy ( talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Any update on the paragraph that ends with "the OMG meeting in September 2008 in Orlando"? trjonescp ( talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is DDS mentioned in the CORBA article? Data Distribution Service for Real-Time systems has nothing to do with CORBA, other than being sponsored by the same organization, OMG. DDS uses a subset of the IDL standard for convenience to define its datatypes, but even that IDL part is going away and will soon be XML based definitions. Some CORBA vendors offer DDS to expand their product line offerings, and re-use CORBA as a "shortcut" to create a DDS implementation, but that does not mean that the DDS standard has any relation to CORBA. A pure DDS implementation has zero CORBA under the hood. This confusion of DDS being associated with CORBA is common in industry, but we should help end the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved the following list of external links here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't fit in the Wikipedia article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with the knowledge discuss the general timeline of CORBA and it's advancements? I know Vinoski wrote a paper back in 1993. Mojodaddy ( talk) 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO this section is not clear. What does "must support" mean in "[...]All CORBA products must support two OMG-defined URLs:[...]"? What about software whose use case doesn't involve the concept of a URL? One could just read the spec, but that defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the article. Sojourner001 ( talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Following sentence is lacking source of information, most notably which CORBA implementation is meant.
"By contrast, the C++11 mapping is very easy to use, as it uses Standard Template Library (STL) heavily." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1488:AC14:1400:1AA9:5FF:FEF6:7AA9 ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As of now there is a lot of detail in the Overview section. Essentially most of the article are sub sections under Overview. I think it needs to be re-structured. E.g., make some of those sub-sections top level sections and/or create additional top level section(s) with a more reasonable title than "Overview" and group the sub-sections under them. I may take a shot at that but at a minimum I wanted to document I think it needs to be done. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yeah, which is not surprising as it was more or less abstracted from a host operating system:
/info/en/?search=Spring_%28operating_system%29
That might be worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.92.84 ( talk) 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What's the status of CORBA today? Are old CORBA based systems being maintained or transitioned? Are new CORBA based systems being built? If so, in what contexts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.92.84 ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm merging the Incarnation article into this one. I'm not going to do much editing to make them fit together, I've done a little editing on the Incarnation text and I'm just going to add a new section called Incarnation after the Overview. It's not a great solution but my CORBA knowledge is kind of rusty and I would have to do more work than I have time for now to read up on it in order to really do justice to the article. But I think at least doing the merge is a step in the right direction: there were no refs on the Inception article at all and it's just a short block of text. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I support merging.. I may do that if I bother.. I'm not an expert on CORBA, and do not really know "Servant" in CORBA or similar context, but it seem it belongs here and not needing a separate page.. It's been a year.. Either nobody cares to much about this/that article and/or it supports CORBA as "dead".. comp.arch ( talk) 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Done by Nbarth ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
CORBA just seems like an over-engineered enterprisey (as defined by thedailywtf.com) and painful earlier alternative to easy-to-use things like JSON.
But I came here, to look for what CORBA brings to the table in comparison…
Aside from the article ringing all the alarm bells of enterprise-speak, I could not find a mention of how it relates to such protocols.
If anyone knows, adding this would be welcome. :)
—
109.42.178.212 (
talk) 13:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Servant (CORBA) page were merged into Common Object Request Broker Architecture. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2016-02-13) |
Modification note (7/1/2003)
I just thought I'd clear this up to avoid a mod-war. IDL stands for Interface Definition Language, *not* Interface "Description" Language. It was recently changed incorrectly to the latter. I've put it back the way that it was. See the CORBA spec p 3-1.
(Derek)
I noticed that someone broke my change above when doing some edits. I've re-edited it so that it is now correct once more.
(Derek)
According to [Douglas Comer]'s Book Computer Networks and Internets with Internet Applications, 4/e, both uses of the term IDL when talking about RPC stuff are valid. Subwy ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick Stavros ( talk) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) OMG has forked the IDL specification. The original IDL which is part of the CORBA specification remains "as-is" and untouched. The same baseline has been lifted from the CORBA specification and is available as a stand alone specification referred to as IDL 3.5.
This was done in order that IDL be allowed to evolve independently from CORBA with the caveat that the support for CORBA not be broken.
I propose that the OMG IDL link in the disambiguation page be changed to point to a new wiki page on 'OMG IDL' the stand alone IDL and that a link be placed into the new page back to this page.
IDL is now an integral part of many other OMG specifications and a new version 4.0 is expected soon.
68.167.249.197 23:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC): I'd suggest that it is standard practice to have the main article body for CORBA/Common object request broker architecture to be under the fully expanded version of the name (cf. Remote procedure call/ RPC, and File transfer protocol/ FTP to name two examples).
68.167.249.197 00:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): One good standard practice within wikipedia is to not disambiguate misspellings. I agree that this is a good guideline to follow. As I also note at Talk:COBRA, I would contend that COBRA vs. CORBA is a case where the exception proves the rule. This is a case of two five-letter acronyms, which is unusual. For two acronyms of that length (and, to get perhaps overly analytical about it, the fact that B and R are both typed by the left index finger on a QWERTY keyboard), isn't a reasonable to anticipate our audience would appreciate such a disambiguation here? I would never advocate disambiguation for TLAs. but this seems a case where a good rule has a reasonable exception.
Wasn't KDE using CORBA and then dropped it? 81.151.193.21 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. What are these supposed to indicate? Why are they not defined? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo 01:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Information about the current status of CORBA is needed. What alternatives are there? Is it evolving? Are there new developments that use CORBA?
References
Is the VMCID really important enough to deserve an article? For that matter, is it even worthwhile to merge into the CORBA article? Wikipedia isn't a comprehensive reference guide for CORBA. That's what the CORBA specs are for. -- Whpq 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The language of these sections seems more like an internet flame war than an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.25.80.243 ( talk) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
The tone needs to be made more neutral and more examples of these supposed failures/short comings are needed; otherwise the criticism is really unsubstantiated.
FYI - I altered the language to be a bit more neutral (if that's possible for me to do) however I did not add any more references, etc. Please give feedback on whether improvement or detriment... seaneparker 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the language is in the past tense. This makes it sound like CORBA is no longer in use. 194.72.110.12 ( talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)jac
I'm not sure where a link to National Transportation Communications for Intelligent Transportation System Protocol (NTCIP) would fit into this article, if anywhere. NTCIP offers CORBA as one of two possible choices for an application layer protocol. Is there a more appropriate listing for standards or other products that make use of CORBA? Squideshi 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"(Red Hat Linux delivers with the GNOME UI system, which has its IPC built on CORBA.)"
In addition to being grammatically unsound on several levels, this sentence is difficult to understand . . . and misleading at best. Red Hat neither engineered nor is the maintainer of GTK+ ("the GNOME UI system"). I'm looking to move/modify this, but I'd like some input on what the original intent was. Was the author merely confused as to Red Hat's responsibilities and what GTK+ is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a code example in one of the languages where the binding is relatively standard, e.g. Java of how CORBA is used would be helpful. Since I don't know that much about how CORBA is used, I don't actually know if that makes sense, but if it does, an example should definitely be in the article. Subwy ( talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Any update on the paragraph that ends with "the OMG meeting in September 2008 in Orlando"? trjonescp ( talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is DDS mentioned in the CORBA article? Data Distribution Service for Real-Time systems has nothing to do with CORBA, other than being sponsored by the same organization, OMG. DDS uses a subset of the IDL standard for convenience to define its datatypes, but even that IDL part is going away and will soon be XML based definitions. Some CORBA vendors offer DDS to expand their product line offerings, and re-use CORBA as a "shortcut" to create a DDS implementation, but that does not mean that the DDS standard has any relation to CORBA. A pure DDS implementation has zero CORBA under the hood. This confusion of DDS being associated with CORBA is common in industry, but we should help end the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved the following list of external links here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't fit in the Wikipedia article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone with the knowledge discuss the general timeline of CORBA and it's advancements? I know Vinoski wrote a paper back in 1993. Mojodaddy ( talk) 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
IMO this section is not clear. What does "must support" mean in "[...]All CORBA products must support two OMG-defined URLs:[...]"? What about software whose use case doesn't involve the concept of a URL? One could just read the spec, but that defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the article. Sojourner001 ( talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Following sentence is lacking source of information, most notably which CORBA implementation is meant.
"By contrast, the C++11 mapping is very easy to use, as it uses Standard Template Library (STL) heavily." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1488:AC14:1400:1AA9:5FF:FEF6:7AA9 ( talk) 13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As of now there is a lot of detail in the Overview section. Essentially most of the article are sub sections under Overview. I think it needs to be re-structured. E.g., make some of those sub-sections top level sections and/or create additional top level section(s) with a more reasonable title than "Overview" and group the sub-sections under them. I may take a shot at that but at a minimum I wanted to document I think it needs to be done. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yeah, which is not surprising as it was more or less abstracted from a host operating system:
/info/en/?search=Spring_%28operating_system%29
That might be worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.92.84 ( talk) 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What's the status of CORBA today? Are old CORBA based systems being maintained or transitioned? Are new CORBA based systems being built? If so, in what contexts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.92.84 ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm merging the Incarnation article into this one. I'm not going to do much editing to make them fit together, I've done a little editing on the Incarnation text and I'm just going to add a new section called Incarnation after the Overview. It's not a great solution but my CORBA knowledge is kind of rusty and I would have to do more work than I have time for now to read up on it in order to really do justice to the article. But I think at least doing the merge is a step in the right direction: there were no refs on the Inception article at all and it's just a short block of text. -- MadScientistX11 ( talk) 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I support merging.. I may do that if I bother.. I'm not an expert on CORBA, and do not really know "Servant" in CORBA or similar context, but it seem it belongs here and not needing a separate page.. It's been a year.. Either nobody cares to much about this/that article and/or it supports CORBA as "dead".. comp.arch ( talk) 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Done by Nbarth ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
CORBA just seems like an over-engineered enterprisey (as defined by thedailywtf.com) and painful earlier alternative to easy-to-use things like JSON.
But I came here, to look for what CORBA brings to the table in comparison…
Aside from the article ringing all the alarm bells of enterprise-speak, I could not find a mention of how it relates to such protocols.
If anyone knows, adding this would be welcome. :)
—
109.42.178.212 (
talk) 13:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)