From ... Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!feeder.qis.net!btnet-peer!btnet!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!127.0.0.1!nobody From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: corba or sockets? Date: 30 Oct 2000 11:56:44 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3181895804626114@naggum.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 972907022 9908 195.0.192.66 (30 Oct 2000 11:57:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2000 11:57:02 GMT mail-copies-to: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.lisp:2884 * Fernando Rodríguez | I have to comunicate a lisp process with a c++ app and I was | considering corba or using sockets. Both are rather new to me, so | wich one would you recommend and why? O:-) CORBA is already badly designed, so if you are new to sockets and protocol design (which you will get yourself into), the likelihood that you, too, will design your protocol badly is so high that it is probably better to go with CORBA. If you are very dedicated, you will probably spend a few months just getting up to speed with protocol design before you can do something that is not a total drag, and upwards of a year to get it fully right. Such braindamaged disasters as HTTP (any version) would not have been possible if there were at least some reasonably accessible material on how to do these things. Security problems in protocols are so common and so hard to avoid that you _really_ don't want to expose yourself to the process of learning by doing. #:Erik -- Does anyone remember where I parked Air Force One? -- George W. Bush