SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

[Panagiotis Issaris]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:16:31 +0000, Andrew McDonagh wrote:
[color=blue]
> j-integra_support @intrinsyc.com wrote:[color=green]
>> If you want the advantages of interoperabilit y AND the performance of a
>> binary protocol, then J-Integra is the solution. J-Integra offers
>> interoperabilit y between .NET, Java, COM, and Corba applications
>> without the overhead of Web Services. The following whitepaper
>> summarizes a performance analysis of using J-Integra versus Web
>> Services for Java .NET interop...
>>
>> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs/...ce_summary.pdf
>>
>> Shane Sauer
>> J-Integra Interoperabilit y Solutions
>> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
>> high performance interop middleware for java, corba, com & .net
>>[/color]
>
> or there's ICE - http://www.zeroc.com/performance/index.html
>
> which has the benefits of Corba without the rubbish and is highly
> efficient too.[/color]
It hasn't got the benefits of CORBA as it is *no standard*. There's only
_one_ implementation of ICE, being the one that ZeroC provides.

And in fact, I found it highly disappointing that ZeroC did not just
introduce a new nicer IDL C++ mapping for CORBA.

With friendly regards,
Takis

[Andrew McDonagh]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

Panagiotis Issaris wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:16:31 +0000, Andrew McDonagh wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>j-integra_support @intrinsyc.com wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>If you want the advantages of interoperabilit y AND the performance of a
>>>binary protocol, then J-Integra is the solution. J-Integra offers
>>>interoperabi lity between .NET, Java, COM, and Corba applications
>>>without the overhead of Web Services. The following whitepaper
>>>summarizes a performance analysis of using J-Integra versus Web
>>>Services for Java .NET interop...
>>>
>>>http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs/...ce_summary.pdf
>>>
>>>Shane Sauer
>>>J-Integra Interoperabilit y Solutions
>>>http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
>>>high performance interop middleware for java, corba, com & .net
>>>[/color]
>>
>>or there's ICE - http://www.zeroc.com/performance/index.html
>>
>>which has the benefits of Corba without the rubbish and is highly
>>efficient too.[/color]
>
> It hasn't got the benefits of CORBA as it is *no standard*.[/color]

Benefits do not equal standards - or why else would we have POAs?

I've worked on enough telecoms projects which use lots of ratified
standards and each equipment manufacture implements those 'standards'
differently.

[color=blue]
> There's only
> _one_ implementation of ICE, being the one that ZeroC provides.
>
> And in fact, I found it highly disappointing that ZeroC did not just
> introduce a new nicer IDL C++ mapping for CORBA.
>[/color]

Agreed - but ICE does a little more than that.
[color=blue]
> With friendly regards,
> Takis[/color]

[Bent C Dalager]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

In article <1133323920.027 642.146900@o13g 2000cwo.googleg roups.com>,
Aquila Deus <aquila.deus@gm ail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>hmmm couldn't this be easily solved by compression??
>[/color]

But then it becomes a binary protocol and you might as well just start
out with a binary one in the first place.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

[Panagiotis Issaris]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:48:12 +0000, Andrew McDonagh wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>or there's ICE - http://www.zeroc.com/performance/index.html
>>>
>>>which has the benefits of Corba without the rubbish and is highly
>>>efficient too.[/color]
>>
>> It hasn't got the benefits of CORBA as it is *no standard*.[/color]
>
> Benefits do not equal standards - or why else would we have POAs?[/color]
Well, yes, but by accepting the POAs you get portability, and thus you get
choice of middleware implementation and choice of middleware
vendor/support.
[color=blue]
> I've worked on enough telecoms projects which use lots of ratified
> standards and each equipment manufacture implements those 'standards'
> differently.[/color]
But does dumping all standards solve anything?

When I program according to the POSIX threading specs or to the CORBA
2.6 specs, I can migrate my application from one environment to another.
Not without any changes, but still easier then when I had programmed to a
proprietary interface.

They could have dumped the parts they didn't like, and which really made a
difference. But instead, they decided to write an "entirely new"
middleware stack... which _strongly_ resembles the existing standard, but
is different (mostly simplified).
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There's only
>> _one_ implementation of ICE, being the one that ZeroC provides.
>>
>> And in fact, I found it highly disappointing that ZeroC did not just
>> introduce a new nicer IDL C++ mapping for CORBA.
>>
>>[/color]
> Agreed - but ICE does a little more than that.[/color]
If I were to believe their marketing page, it is the problem free solution
to all our problems, being efficient, scalable, easy and all other great
things.

On that same marketing page, they critisize CORBA for having many specs
being only implemented by "few" vendors. How many vendors implement ICE?


And this worries me too:
"Ice supports C++, Java, Python, PHP, C#, and Visual Basic. We are not
aware of any CORBA company that offers so much choice. In fact, most CORBA
vendors only offer C++ and Java. If you want to use other languages, you
have switch to different vendors, or consider using unsupported
experimental CORBA implementations ."

In their mindset it is a problem if you have to rely on different vendors
for different software solutions: If you choose CORBA and want to use
multiple languages, you'll have to use products of many vendors. While if
you choose ICE, ZeroC can provide all your needs. Sounds very Microsoftish.

I would prefer to read that as: If you choose ZeroC you can only have
_one_ vendor: ZeroC.

With friendly regards,
Takis

[Roedy Green]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:15:54 +0100, Panagiotis Issaris
<takis@issaris. org> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
[color=blue]
>Binary protocols or formats _do not_ prevent interoperabilit y. The TCP/IP
>stack is binary, the JPEG format is binary and numerous other formats are
>binary and perfectly interoperable.[/color]

The nice thing about binary formats is they are specified down to the
bit.

With any character based protocol there is always the ambiguity of
what encoding s supposed to be used. And even if the standard has
the balls to demand it, GUARANTEED you will soon find documents
floating about the universe with every encoding under the sun with
unmarked or mislabeled encodings.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[j-integra_support@intrinsyc.com]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

>Yes, .Net is a Microsoft only solution, which will lock you into Microsoft[color=blue]
>solutions and thus give you zero freedom of choice afterwards.[/color]

Not necessarily. Interoperabilit y middleware solutions such as
J-Integra allow you to use Microsoft .NET/COM technology with Java and
Corba.
[color=blue]
>But the obvious solution for binary protocols is using IIOP (CORBA). It is
>an open standard specified by the OMG being implemented by many vendors.
>So if you choose for CORBA, you'll get freedom of choice. Which is
>ofcourse not surprising, as choosing a standard has the obvious result of
>giving you freedom of choice of a particular implementation.[/color]

J-Integra Espresso is a Corba ORB for the .NET platform that allows
your .NET clients to "talk" IIOP to Java/Corba servers. Middleware
solutions such as this allow you to use Microsoft .NET without worrying
as much about vendor lock-in.

Shane Sauer
J-Integra Interoperabilit y Solutions

http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/

high performance interop middleware for java, corba, com & .net

[Roedy Green]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

On 5 Dec 2005 12:12:37 -0800, j-integra_support @intrinsyc.com wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Yes, .Net is a Microsoft only solution, which will lock you into Microsoft
>>solutions and thus give you zero freedom of choice afterwards.[/color]
>
>Not necessarily. Interoperabilit y middleware solutions such as
>J-Integra allow you to use Microsoft .NET/COM technology with Java and
>Corba.[/color]

I don't see how that follows. If you use .NET, you are locked into
MS no matter what tools you used.

Are you saying at least your Java side code can be flipped to
something else with a config parm, rather than redesigning code?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[j-integra_support@intrinsyc.com]

Re: SOAP Performance - Really so slow ?

Having "legacy" applications written in COM or .NET does not
necessarily mean you *HAVE* to choose Microsoft technologies for future
development. There is a great deal of interop middleware out there
which allows you to expand your infrastructure with a different
technology without losing the ability to communicate with your old
Microsoft apps (or vice versa). J-Integra is one example of a
middleware solution which provides interoperabilit y between COM/.NET
and Java/Corba.

Shane Sauer
J-Integra Interoperabilit y Solutions

http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/

high performance interop middleware for java, corba, com & .net