Comment Re:It's weak (Score 1) 148
- It's too much RPC and not enough distributed objects. They support the concept of session/transaction IDs, (although these seem nicely spoofable). But the persistence model is too weak and object refs are not explicit.
I'm sorry you are not happy with SOAP. Your comments are interesting. Here's my take on what you stated.
SOAP deliberately doesn't mandate object semantics. It also doesn't prohibit it. SOAP also doesn't explicitly support session or tx IDs. I am not sure you are reading the same spec I worked on (we used a tx id as an example application for protocol extensions but by no means mandated or even spec'ed them).
As for objrefs being explicit, I'm not sure what you mean. URLs are pretty explicit in the HTTP protocol and they are in essence our objref format. As for server-side persistence, SOAP isn't trying to mandate a CORBA-esque (or COM-esque) programming model, just a wire protocol. It would be trivial to layer a POA on the back end (RogueWave/Neuveau are doing just that I believe).
As for tunnelling IIOP or DCOM over HTTP, these are PROPRIETARY solutions and I don't know if any orb vendor has implemented the OMG spec for dealing with firewalls in a shipping product.
