[omniORB] question on usage of omniORB

[Attila Pletyak]

Well, the question is quite interesting,
1) the using of IOR is really awkward, as you said
2) the use of naming service makes your life easy, but it can happen
that the naming service does not run or some other problems happens
3) in which case the corbaloc would make a good use for you. Actually
I've never used corbaloc uris, but when you are developping an
application for which you know on which host and port a server object
runs with which object id, making a corbaloc does the work of object
lookup for you.

BTW: The name server provided by omniORB is not for heavy loads, it can
be used in most situations, but if you have a very demanding
environment, I believe, corbaloc could do a better work. Duncan, please
correct me if I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Attila Pletyak

2002-03-04, h keltez=E9ssel Donna Maskell ezt =EDrta:
> I have seen several postings where people talk about launching their
> applications with command line arguments to indicate the IOR of an
> object reference. This confuses me. I have launched the echo server and
> client on a Unix system, using the IOR output by the server when
> launching the client, and this seems like a very awkward and hardly
> robust interface. On the other hand, I found some code that allows a
> server to bind an object to a name and allows a client to get a
> reference using the same name. Aside from the need to make sure there is
> not name duplication and that everyone who wants a handle to the same
> object uses the same name, this seems a better option.
>=20
> On the other hand, I don't believe the rest of you are out to lunch on
> this, so what am I not seeing? What is the advantage of using an IOR or
> URI or whatever as an argument? Is it for flexibility? I think my
> applications will generally set up the same set of connections each time
> they run. I would like to know about the more complicated usage in case
> it does offer functionality I need.
>=20
> Thank you in advance,
>=20
> Donna
>=20