CORBA and JMS

**Gregg Shenton** · Jul 17 '05, 09:51 PM

Re: CORBA and JMS

Omkant

You may find PrismTech's white paper on JMS / CORBA Notification
Service interworking of interest

http://www.prismtechnologies.com/English/Products/CORBA/Integration/whitepaper_jms/jms_BR_May01.html

Regards
Gregg

omkant_it@redif fmail.com (csafd) wrote in message news:<72a600b2. 0309210640.7ef5 86e5@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> hi everyone,
> can anyone help me here,
> I want to know which communication technology
> is good for my system(which of course is being implemented
> as a distributed system).
> The technologies which I need to compare are:
>
> 1. Java Message Service (JMS)
> 2. CORBA (using Java)
> 3. SOAP (using Java)
>
> Though I got a lot of material comparing SOAP and CORBA and many
> more
> but I have found not even a single document or test on internet
> which compares JMS and CORBA or JMS & SOAP or all the three above.
>
> can anyone help me by providing some analysis about when one should
> use
> JMS and when not. what are the problems with JMS. I have to handle a
> lot of XML data and also control and synchronization protocols have to
> be written in Java using JMS which may not be XML necessarily. when
> one should not use JMS etc..
> Thanks in advance-
> Omkant[/color]

**Christopher Browne** · Jul 17 '05, 09:51 PM

Re: CORBA and JMS

In the last exciting episode, omkant_it@redif fmail.com (csafd) wrote:[color=blue]
> can anyone help me by providing some analysis about when one should
> use JMS and when not. what are the problems with JMS. I have to
> handle a lot of XML data and also control and synchronization
> protocols have to be written in Java using JMS which may not be XML
> necessarily. when one should not use JMS etc.. Thanks in advance-[/color]

JMS is fundamentally different from the others in that it is
inherently an asynchronous system, whereas the others are synchronous.

Messaging (JMS) necessarily makes additional copies of data, which is
a cost that CORBA doesn't necessarily have to incur.

In effect, CORBA is a "win" if both client and server are both readily
available to immediately respond and "converse" as they exchange
communications. If either side may have to defer processing of
requests, then queueing requests (JMS) is a win.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrow ne> rate me

http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/multiplexor.html

"In America, we have a two-party system. There is the stupid
party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the
stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do
something that is both stupid and evil. This is called -
bipartisanship. " -- Republican congressional staffer

**Ke Jin** · Jul 17 '05, 09:51 PM

Re: CORBA and JMS

JMS is neither about communication nor about protocol, but merely a
portable API for legacy MOM integration. This is just like JDBC is
neither about database file structure/organization nor about database
client/server protocol but merely a portable API for database access.

Like JDBC doesn't specify client/server protocol or backend file
structure/organization, JMS doesn't specifies MOM protocol either. JMS
implementations available today are all proprietary. Unlike CORBA or
SOAP where applicatons can communicate using components from different
vendors, JMS messages can only be exchanged between JMS clients from
the same MOM vendor.

Therefore, JMS is usually used in close systems, such as a workflow
engine of a PetStore transaction process system, where one has full
control and knowledge on all involved components. S/he can decide and
freely replace all JMS clients and the MOM within this close system.
It at least gives s/he the flexablility of code portability acrossing
different MOMs.

In building open systems, especialy in building applications which
need to interoperate with third party components, CORBA and SOAP are
better than JMS. For instance, if you implement a management agent on
a network element (NE), such as a router or switch, which needs to
communicate (via either operations or traps/events) with a third party
element management system (ems), JMS would be the last choice. Because
neither NE vendors nor the EMS vendors has full control and knowledge
on what are the possible JMS components and MOMs might eventually be
used in customers' network systems. Different customers may perfer
different MOMs and therefore would require different JMS clients on
every NEs and the EMS. But NE vendors can not pre-install all possible
JMS components on a NE box. This is why many NEs today are already
CORBA and SOAP capable (like most Cisco routers/switchs) but still
none is JMS'ized.

Regards,
Ke

omkant_it@redif fmail.com (csafd) wrote in message news:<72a600b2. 0309210640.7ef5 86e5@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> hi everyone,
> can anyone help me here,
> I want to know which communication technology
> is good for my system(which of course is being implemented
> as a distributed system).
> The technologies which I need to compare are:
>
> 1. Java Message Service (JMS)
> 2. CORBA (using Java)
> 3. SOAP (using Java)
>
> Though I got a lot of material comparing SOAP and CORBA and many
> more
> but I have found not even a single document or test on internet
> which compares JMS and CORBA or JMS & SOAP or all the three above.
>
> can anyone help me by providing some analysis about when one should
> use
> JMS and when not. what are the problems with JMS. I have to handle a
> lot of XML data and also control and synchronization protocols have to
> be written in Java using JMS which may not be XML necessarily. when
> one should not use JMS etc..
> Thanks in advance-
> Omkant[/color]

**Christopher Blunck** · Jul 17 '05, 09:52 PM

Re: CORBA and JMS

Well put,

-c

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:06:53 -0700, Ke Jin wrote:
[color=blue]
> JMS is neither about communication nor about protocol, but merely a
> portable API for legacy MOM integration. This is just like JDBC is
> neither about database file structure/organization nor about database
> client/server protocol but merely a portable API for database access.
>
> Like JDBC doesn't specify client/server protocol or backend file
> structure/organization, JMS doesn't specifies MOM protocol either. JMS
> implementations available today are all proprietary. Unlike CORBA or
> SOAP where applicatons can communicate using components from different
> vendors, JMS messages can only be exchanged between JMS clients from
> the same MOM vendor.
>
> Therefore, JMS is usually used in close systems, such as a workflow
> engine of a PetStore transaction process system, where one has full
> control and knowledge on all involved components. S/he can decide and
> freely replace all JMS clients and the MOM within this close system.
> It at least gives s/he the flexablility of code portability acrossing
> different MOMs.
>
> In building open systems, especialy in building applications which
> need to interoperate with third party components, CORBA and SOAP are
> better than JMS. For instance, if you implement a management agent on
> a network element (NE), such as a router or switch, which needs to
> communicate (via either operations or traps/events) with a third party
> element management system (ems), JMS would be the last choice. Because
> neither NE vendors nor the EMS vendors has full control and knowledge
> on what are the possible JMS components and MOMs might eventually be
> used in customers' network systems. Different customers may perfer
> different MOMs and therefore would require different JMS clients on
> every NEs and the EMS. But NE vendors can not pre-install all possible
> JMS components on a NE box. This is why many NEs today are already
> CORBA and SOAP capable (like most Cisco routers/switchs) but still
> none is JMS'ized.
>
> Regards,
> Ke
>
> omkant_it@redif fmail.com (csafd) wrote in message news:<72a600b2. 0309210640.7ef5 86e5@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=green]
>> hi everyone,
>> can anyone help me here,
>> I want to know which communication technology
>> is good for my system(which of course is being implemented
>> as a distributed system).
>> The technologies which I need to compare are:
>>
>> 1. Java Message Service (JMS)
>> 2. CORBA (using Java)
>> 3. SOAP (using Java)
>>
>> Though I got a lot of material comparing SOAP and CORBA and many
>> more
>> but I have found not even a single document or test on internet
>> which compares JMS and CORBA or JMS & SOAP or all the three above.
>>
>> can anyone help me by providing some analysis about when one should
>> use
>> JMS and when not. what are the problems with JMS. I have to handle a
>> lot of XML data and also control and synchronization protocols have to
>> be written in Java using JMS which may not be XML necessarily. when
>> one should not use JMS etc..
>> Thanks in advance-
>> Omkant[/color][/color]

CORBA and JMS

CORBA and JMS

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment