[omniORB] Implementation repository
Renzo Tomaselli
renzo.tomaselli@tecnotp.it
Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:55:31 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_008A_01BF3D74.88DE8B90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
assume one would implement an Implem. Repository over Omniorb =
2.8 such the one described in Henning & Vinoski book. The loading on =
demand feature of Omniorb looks great for this, so that one could use =
indirect binding for all persistent objects.
But the hard point is about forcing an implementation BOA to include a =
<host,port> pair into generated IOR profiles while listening on a =
possibly *different* port. The option -BOAiiop_name_port is described in =
such a way making me to believe the used port concerns both the port to =
listen on *and* the port to include into a profile.
This would mean that IR and all implementations must use the same port - =
a hard constraint to follow; really impossible when multiple processes =
are listening at the same host. On the other hand the host name setting =
should be ok with this option.
A closely connected issue concerns non-persistent object: in this case =
an implementation would like to use direct binding only, e.g. to include =
local host and port into a IOR profile, without involving the IR. AFAIK, =
Omniorb BOA setup cannot be differentiated to yield different profiles =
for different objects.
Alternatively multiple -BOAiiop_port lead to include multiple profiles =
in a IOR, which in principle should be an even optimized way to handle =
this issue, according to Vinosky; the IOR would include both direct and =
indirect binding profiles.
But for some reasons this approach is not safe or not liked (I remember =
some comments on this list stating as an ORB might forget about any =
extra profile after the very first one, I don't know about Omniorb =
behavior here).
Any comment ? Thanks,
Renzo Tomaselli =20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
TecnoTP s.n.c. Special Information System Design
Maso Pelauchi I38050 Ronchi Valsugana, Trento TN ITALY
Tel. +39 0461 773164 Fax. +39 0461 771514
e-mail: renzo.tomaselli@tecnotp.it =20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
------=_NextPart_000_008A_01BF3D74.88DE8B90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hi all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2> assume one =
would=20
implement an Implem. Repository over Omniorb 2.8 such the one described =
in=20
Henning & Vinoski book. The loading on demand feature of Omniorb =
looks great=20
for this, so that one could use indirect binding for all persistent=20
objects.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But the hard point is about forcing an =
implementation BOA to=20
include a <host,port> pair into generated IOR profiles while =
listening on=20
a possibly *different* port. The option -BOAiiop_name_port is =
described in=20
such a way making me to believe the used port concerns both the port to =
listen=20
on *and* the port to include into a profile.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>This would mean that IR and all implementations must =
use the=20
same port - a hard constraint to follow; really impossible when multiple =
processes are listening at the same host. On the other hand the host =
name=20
setting should be ok with this option.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A closely connected issue concerns non-persistent =
object: in=20
this case an implementation would like to use direct binding only, e.g. =
to=20
include local host and port into a IOR profile, without involving the =
IR. AFAIK,=20
Omniorb BOA setup cannot be differentiated to yield different profiles =
for=20
different objects.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Alternatively multiple -BOAiiop_port lead to include =
multiple=20
profiles in a IOR, which in principle should be an even optimized way to =
handle=20
this issue, according to Vinosky; the IOR would include both direct and =
indirect=20
binding profiles.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But for some reasons this approach is not safe or =
not liked (I=20
remember some comments on this list stating as an ORB might forget about =
any=20
extra profile after the very first one, I don't know about Omniorb =
behavior=20
here).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Any comment ? </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
size=3D2> &nbs=
p;  =
; =
=20
Renzo Tomaselli =20
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------=
------<BR>TecnoTP=20
s.n.c. Special Information System Design<BR>Maso Pelauchi I38050 Ronchi=20
Valsugana, Trento TN ITALY<BR>Tel. +39 0461=20
773164 Fax. +39 0461 771514<BR>e-mail: <A=20
href=3D"mailto:renzo.tomaselli@tecnotp.it">renzo.tomaselli@tecnotp.it</A>=
=20
<BR>---------------------------------------------------------------------=
------</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_008A_01BF3D74.88DE8B90--