Common Object Request Broker Architecture: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:08, 24 December 2009

The Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) is a standard defined by the Object Management Group (OMG) that enables software components written in multiple computer languages and running on multiple computers to work together, i.e. it supports multiple platforms.

Overview

hi cse students

CORBA Topics

Objects By Reference

This reference is either acquired through a stringified URI string, NameService lookup (similar to DNS), or passed-in as a method parameter during a call.

Object references are lightweight objects matching the interface of the real object (remote or local). Method calls on the reference result in subsequent calls to the ORB and blocking on the thread while waiting for a reply, success or failure. The parameters, return data (if any), and exception data are marshaled internally by the ORB according the local language and OS mapping.

Data By Value

The CORBA Interface Definition Language provides the language- and OS-neutral inter-object communication definition. CORBA Objects are passed by reference, while data (integers, doubles, structs, enums, etc) are passed by value. The combination of Objects by reference and data-by-value provides the means to enforce strong data typing while compiling clients and servers, yet preserve the flexibility inherent in the CORBA problem-space.

Objects by Value (OBV)

Apart from remote objects, the CORBA and RMI-IIOP define the concept of the OBV and Valuetypes. The code inside the methods of Valuetype objects is executed locally by default. If the OBV has been received from the remote side, the needed code must be either a priori known for both sides or dynamically downloaded from the sender. To make this possible, the record, defining OBV, contains the Code Base that is a space-separated list of URLs from where this code should be downloaded. The OBV can also have the remote methods.

The OBV's may have fields that are transferred when the OBV is transferred. These fields can be OBV's themselves, forming lists, trees or arbitrary graphs. The OBV's have a class hierarchy, including multiple inheritance and abstract classes.

CORBA Component Model (CCM)

CORBA Component Model (CCM) is an addition to the family of CORBA definitions. It was introduced with CORBA 3 and it describes a standard application framework for CORBA components. Though not dependent on "language independent Enterprise Java Beans (EJB)", it is a more general form of EJB, providing 4 component types instead of the 2 that EJB defines. It provides an abstraction of entities that can provide and accept services through well-defined named interfaces called ports.

The CCM has a component container, where software components can be deployed. The container offers a set of services that the components can use. These services include (but are not limited to) notification, authentication, persistence and transaction management. These are the most-used services any distributed system requires, and, by moving the implementation of these services from the software components to the component container, the complexity of the components is dramatically reduced.

Portable interceptors

Portable interceptors are the "hooks", used by CORBA and RMI-IIOP to mediate the most important functions of the CORBA system. The CORBA standard defines the following types of interceptors:

IOR interceptors mediate the creation of the new references to the remote objects, presented by the current server.
Client interceptors usually mediate the remote method calls on the client (caller) side. If the object Servant exists on the same server where the method is invoked, they also mediate the local calls.
Server interceptors mediate the handling of the remote method calls on the server (handler) side.

The interceptors can attach the specific information to the messages being sent and IORs being created. This information can be later read by the corresponding interceptor on the remote side. Interceptors can also throw forwarding exceptions, redirecting request to another target.

General InterORB Protocol (GIOP)

The GIOP is an abstract protocol by which Object request brokers (ORBs) communicate. Standards associated with the protocol are maintained by the Object Management Group (OMG.). The GIOP architecture provides several concrete protocols:

Internet InterORB Protocol (IIOP) — The Internet Inter-Orb Protocol is an implementation of the GIOP for use over an internet, and provides a mapping between GIOP messages and the TCP/IP layer.
SSL InterORB Protocol (SSLIOP) — SSLIOP is IIOP over SSL, providing encryption and authentication.
HyperText InterORB Protocol (HTIOP) — HTIOP is IIOP over HTTP, providing transparent proxy bypassing.
and many more...

Data Distribution Service (DDS)

The Object Management Group (OMG) has a related standard known as the Data Distribution Service (DDS) standard. DDS is a publish-subscribe data distribution model, in contrast to the CORBA remotely-invoked object model.

VMCID (Vendor Minor Codeset ID)

Each standard CORBA exception includes a minor code to designate the subcategory of the exception. Minor exception codes are of type unsigned long and consist of a 20-bit “Vendor Minor Codeset ID” (VMCID), which occupies the high order 20 bits, and the minor code which occupies the low order 12 bits.

Minor codes for the standard exceptions are prefaced by the VMCID assigned to OMG, defined as the unsigned long constant CORBA::OMGVMCID, which has the VMCID allocated to OMG occupying the high order 20 bits. The minor exception codes associated with the standard exceptions that are found in Table 3-13 on page 3-58 are or-ed with OMGVMCID to get the minor code value that is returned in the ex_body structure (see Section 3.17.1, “Standard Exception Definitions,” on page 3-52 and Section 3.17.2, “Standard Minor Exception Codes,” on page 3-58).

Within a vendor assigned space, the assignment of values to minor codes is left to the vendor. Vendors may request allocation of VMCIDs by sending email to tagrequest@omg.org.

The VMCID 0 and 0xfffff are reserved for experimental use. The VMCID OMGVMCID (Section 3.17.1, “Standard Exception Definitions,” on page 3-52) and 1 through 0xf are reserved for OMG use.

The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification (CORBA 2.3)

Corba Location (CorbaLoc)

Corba Location (CorbaLoc) refers to a stringified object reference for a CORBA object that looks similar to a URL.

All CORBA products must support two OMG-defined URLs: "corbaloc:" and "corbaname:". The purpose of these is to provide a human readable and editable way to specify a location where an IOR can be obtained.

An example of corbaloc is shown below:

corbaloc::160.45.110.41:38693/StandardNS/NameServer-POA/_root

A CORBA product may optionally support the "http:", "ftp:" and "file:" formats. The semantics of these is that they provide details of how to download a stringified IOR (or, recursively, download another URL that will eventually provide a stringified IOR). Some ORBs do deliver additional formats which are proprietary for that ORB.

Benefits

CORBA aims to bring to the table many benefits that no other single technology brings in one package. These benefits include language- and OS-independence, freedom from technology-linked implementations, strong data-typing, high level of tunability, and freedom from the details of distributed data transfers.

Language Independence: CORBA at the outset was designed to free engineers from the hang-ups and limitations of considering their designs based on a particular software language. Currently there are many languages supported by various CORBA providers, the most popular are Java and C++. There are also C-only, SmallTalk, Perl, Ada, Ruby, and Python implementations, just to mention a few.

OS Independence: CORBA's design is meant to be OS-independent. CORBA is available in Java (OS-independent), as well as natively for Linux/Unix, Windows, Sun, Mac and others.

Freedom from Technologies: One of the main implicit benefits is that CORBA provides a neutral playing field for engineers to be able to normalize the interfaces between various new and legacy systems. When integrating C, C++, Object Pascal, Java, Fortran, Python, and any other language or OS into a single cohesive system design model, CORBA provides the means to level the field and allow disparate teams to develop systems and unit tests that can later be joined together into a whole system. This does not rule out the need for basic system engineering decisions, such as threading, timing, object lifetime, etc. These issues are part of any system regardless of technology. CORBA allows system elements to be normalized into a single cohesive system model.

For example, the design of a Multitier architecture is made simple using Java Servlets in the web server and various e time, C++ legacy code can talk to C or Fortran legacy code and Java database code, and can provide data to a web interface.

Strong Data Typing: CORBA provides flexible data typing, for example an "ANY" datatype. CORBA also enforces tightly coupled datatyping, reducing human errors. In a situation where Name-Value pairs are passed around, it's conceivable that a server provides a number where a string was expected. CORBA Interface Definition Language provides the mechanism to ensure that user-code conforms to method-names, return-, parameter-types, and exceptions.

High Tune-ability: There are many implementations available (e.g. OmniORB (Open source C++ and Python implementation)) that have many options for tuning the threading and connection management features. Not all implementations provide the same features. This is up to the implementor.

Freedom From Data Transfer Details: When handling low-level connection and threading, CORBA provides a high-level of detail in error conditions. This is defined in the CORBA-defined standard exception set and the implementation-specific extended exception set. Through the exceptions, the application can determine if a call failed for reasons such as "Small problem, so try again", "The server is dead" or "The reference doesn't make sense." The general rule is: Not receiving an exception means that the method call completed successfully. This is a very powerful design feature.

Compression: CORBA marshals its data in a binary form and supports compression. IONA, Remedy IT and Telefónica have worked on an extension to the CORBA standard that delivers compression. This extension is called ZIOP and this is now recommended for adoption.

Problems and criticism

While CORBA promised to deliver much in the way code was written and software constructed, it has been the subject of much criticism.^[1]

Some of the failures were due to the implementations and the process by which CORBA was created as a standard, others reflect problems in the politics and business of implementing a software standard. These problems led to a significant decline in CORBA use and adoption in new projects and areas.

Implementation incompatibilities: The initial specifications of CORBA defined only the IDL, not the on-the-wire format. This meant that source-code compatibility was the best that was available for several years.

Location transparency: CORBA's notion of location transparency has been criticized; that is, that objects residing in the same address space and accessible with a simple function call are treated the same as objects residing elsewhere (different processes on the same machine, or different machines). This notion is flawed if one requires all local accesses to be as complicated as the most complex remote scenario. However, CORBA does not place a restriction on the complexity of the calls. Many implementations provide for recursive thread/connection semantics. I.e. Obj A calls Obj B, which in turn calls Obj A back, before returning.

Design and process deficiencies: The creation of the CORBA standard is also often cited for its process of design by committee. There was no process to arbitrate between conflicting proposals or to decide on the hierarchy of problems to tackle. Thus the standard was created by taking a union of the features in all proposals with no regard to their coherence.^[2] This made the specification very complex, prohibitively expensive to implement entirely and often ambiguous.

A design committee composed largely of vendors of the standard implementation, created a disincentive to make a comprehensive standard. This was because standards and interoperability increased competition and eased customers' movement between alternative implementations. This led to much political fighting within the committee, and frequent releases of revisions of the CORBA standard that were impossible to use without proprietary extensions.^[1]

Problems with implementations: Through its history, CORBA has been plagued by shortcomings in its implementations. Often there have been few implementations matching all of the critical elements of the specification,^[2] and existing implementations were incomplete or inadequate. As there were no requirements to provide a reference implementation, members were free to propose features which were never tested for usefulness or implementability. Implementations were further hindered by the general tendency of the standard to be verbose, and the common practice of compromising by adopting the sum of all submitted proposals, which often created APIs that were incoherent and difficult to use, even if the individual proposals were perfectly reasonable.^{[citation needed]}

Working implementations of CORBA have been very difficult to acquire in the past, but are now much easier to find. The SUN Java SDK comes with CORBA already. Some poorly designed implementations have been found to be complex, slow, incompatible and incomplete. Commercial versions can be very expensive. This changed significantly as commercial-, hobbyist-, and government-funded high quality free implementations became available.

Firewalls: CORBA (more precisely, IIOP) uses raw TCP/IP connections in order to transmit data. However, if the client is behind a very restrictive firewall or transparent proxy server environment that only allows HTTP connections to the outside through port 80, communication may be impossible, unless the proxy server in question allows the HTTP CONNECT method or SOCKS connections as well. At one time, it was difficult even to force implementations to use a single standard port — they tended to pick multiple random ports instead. As of today, current ORBs do have these deficiencies. Due to such difficulties, some users have made increasing use of web services instead of CORBA. These communicate using XML/SOAP via port 80, which is normally left open or filtered through a HTTP proxy inside the organization, for web browsing via HTTP. Recent CORBA implementations, though, support SSL and can be easily configured to work on a single port. Most of the popular open source ORBS, such as TAO and JacORB also support bidirectional GIOP, which gives CORBA the advantage of being able to use callback communication rather than the polling approach characteristic of web service implementations. Also, more CORBA-friendly firewalls are now commercially available.

References

^ ^a ^b Trouble with CORBA An historical essay, outlining some of the problems that eventually allowed Java's popularity to overshadow the problems CORBA were trying to solve
^ ^a ^b Rise and Fall of CORBA, a comprehensive analysis of CORBA failures, by one of its former architects, Michi Henning (who was/is also involved in the creation of Ice, a competing, commercial product)

External links

[CORBA_trouble-1] Trouble with CORBA An historical essay, outlining some of the problems that eventually allowed Java's popularity to overshadow the problems CORBA were trying to solve

[ACM_fall-2] Rise and Fall of CORBA, a comprehensive analysis of CORBA failures, by one of its former architects, Michi Henning (who was/is also involved in the creation of Ice, a competing, commercial product)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Overview ==
-fsddfg
+hi cse students
 == CORBA Topics ==