Exposing COM via XML-RPC or Something Else

[Samuel A. Falvo II]

In article <slrn84iuj6.62k.bernhard at alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
>Well AFAI understand it COM also is an interoperability standard,
>but I might just miss the point here.

A component model relies on an interoperability standard, but the reverse
isn't necessarily the case.  There are services which must be layered on top
of CORBA to allow it to serve as a component standard, and even then, it
works (primarily) only for distributed components.  Local components are
supported, but are slower to use with CORBA than through COM.

>>Um -- that's true for COM+, but COM doesn't need it to operate.
>Well if you don't want distributed computing...

Yes, you can do distributed computing without COM+.  Remember, DCOM predates
COM+ by at least two years, and didn't include a shread of transactioning
support.

Who says that MTS is the end-all and be-all of distributed components via
COM?

>I do not habe much experience about it, I admit, but technically they
>also seem to have the same complexity. I just do not believe that
>COM is easier to code. 
>Well this is, what the articles support, too.

I have experience with CORBA.  It's a nightmare.  COM and DCOM are at least
three orders of magnitudes easier to UNDERSTAND, and hence, easier to work
with.  I'm perfectly happy writing more code if I understand the overall
system much better than if things are abstracted to hell and back.

Please understand -- I'm not "dissing" CORBA.  I just don't think it can
compete with COM because COM addresses developers' needs better.

--
KC5TJA/6, DM13, QRP-L #1447
Samuel A. Falvo II
Oceanside, CA