On 11 Feb, 16:06, Mark Woyna <wo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Indeed. I never argued that the choices were sane. Allowing the sw
to
> > > become so out of date wih the maintenance issues it has IMO is,
ahem,
> > > sub-optimal. But I have to make it work until they can migrate away
> > It's all off now. If java is ever reintroduced it will be with JMS
> > instead of CORBA.
> > There were a few incidents of Orbix connectivity problems after this
> > move. The two events were connected. The conclusion was to remove the
> > java work.
> > > Also, I think that CORBA is a good technology for the problem at
hand,
> > > it's the ancient version that is the problem. I did recommend that
> > > they stay with CORBA but was overruled.
> Thanks for the update. I share your pain. You certainly can't be
> faulted for not trying.
>
> Since this is a CORBA newsgroup, I'll add this. I've been using Java/
> CORBA successfully for over 10 years. We run the worlds largest
> options exchange on a CORBA platform, written in Java. We process over
> 2 billion quotes a day.
Well, I believe in CORBA and IMO there is nothing wrong in using CORBA
wirh java.
> I have to imagine that many within your company will point to this
> fiasco as a failure of CORBA.
Looks that way.
> I would say it's simply a failure of
> management, not technology.
Yes.
> The decision to stick with a old,
> unsup****ted, buggy product when there are viable alternatives is a
> 100% management decision.
I did what I could, and so did IONA.
> It'll be interesting to see what they do in
> the future when they have to integrate with a non-Java application.
This place is 100% java so I don't think that will ever happen. If it
does then I may get another contract!
>
> Mark
FWIW, the Orbix connectivity problems we were only seeing in
production now seem to happen in our pre-UAT environment. So it looks
like the sickness is spreading.
|
