Comparisons between CORBA IDL & COM/DCOM MIDL: Interfaces for distributed computing

Chris Exton; Damien Watkins; Dean Thompson

doi:10.1109/tools.1997.681859

Comparisons between CORBA IDL & COM/DCOM MIDL: Interfaces for distributed computing

Chris Exton, Damien Watkins, Dean Thompson

Monash University

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

Abstract

The adoption of distributed computing has brought with it the problem of interoperability. Today, program developers need to interoperate over large and complex heterogeneous networks. Dealing with the interoperability problems that these networks can provide leads to increasing the complexity of the overall system. This complexity can be significantly reduced through the introduction of an interface definition language which adds an abstraction layer capable of handling many of the underlying problems. Two major interface definition languages being used today include CORBA's Interface Definition Language (IDL) and Microsoft's Interface Definition Language (MIDL) associated with COM/DCOM. This paper provides an overview of both interface definition languages and a comparison between them based on our experiences developing distributed systems using both. We draw some conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Original language	English
Pages	15-32
Number of pages	18
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/tools.1997.681859
Publication status	Published - 1997
Externally published	Yes
Event	Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems - Melbourne, Aust Duration: 24 Nov 1997 → 28 Nov 1997

Conference

Conference	Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems
City	Melbourne, Aust
Period	24/11/97 → 28/11/97

Access to Document

10.1109/tools.1997.681859

Cite this

@conference{4c2897b2ec0d498ca959d64b71819950,

title = "Comparisons between CORBA IDL & COM/DCOM MIDL: Interfaces for distributed computing",

abstract = "The adoption of distributed computing has brought with it the problem of interoperability. Today, program developers need to interoperate over large and complex heterogeneous networks. Dealing with the interoperability problems that these networks can provide leads to increasing the complexity of the overall system. This complexity can be significantly reduced through the introduction of an interface definition language which adds an abstraction layer capable of handling many of the underlying problems. Two major interface definition languages being used today include CORBA's Interface Definition Language (IDL) and Microsoft's Interface Definition Language (MIDL) associated with COM/DCOM. This paper provides an overview of both interface definition languages and a comparison between them based on our experiences developing distributed systems using both. We draw some conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of both.",

author = "Chris Exton and Damien Watkins and Dean Thompson",

year = "1997",

doi = "10.1109/tools.1997.681859",

language = "English",

pages = "15--32",

note = "Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems ; Conference date: 24-11-1997 Through 28-11-1997",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Comparisons between CORBA IDL & COM/DCOM MIDL

T2 - Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems

AU - Exton, Chris

AU - Watkins, Damien

AU - Thompson, Dean

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - The adoption of distributed computing has brought with it the problem of interoperability. Today, program developers need to interoperate over large and complex heterogeneous networks. Dealing with the interoperability problems that these networks can provide leads to increasing the complexity of the overall system. This complexity can be significantly reduced through the introduction of an interface definition language which adds an abstraction layer capable of handling many of the underlying problems. Two major interface definition languages being used today include CORBA's Interface Definition Language (IDL) and Microsoft's Interface Definition Language (MIDL) associated with COM/DCOM. This paper provides an overview of both interface definition languages and a comparison between them based on our experiences developing distributed systems using both. We draw some conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of both.

AB - The adoption of distributed computing has brought with it the problem of interoperability. Today, program developers need to interoperate over large and complex heterogeneous networks. Dealing with the interoperability problems that these networks can provide leads to increasing the complexity of the overall system. This complexity can be significantly reduced through the introduction of an interface definition language which adds an abstraction layer capable of handling many of the underlying problems. Two major interface definition languages being used today include CORBA's Interface Definition Language (IDL) and Microsoft's Interface Definition Language (MIDL) associated with COM/DCOM. This paper provides an overview of both interface definition languages and a comparison between them based on our experiences developing distributed systems using both. We draw some conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of both.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031318584&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/tools.1997.681859

DO - 10.1109/tools.1997.681859

M3 - Paper

AN - SCOPUS:0031318584

SP - 15

EP - 32

Y2 - 24 November 1997 through 28 November 1997

ER -

Comparisons between CORBA IDL & COM/DCOM MIDL: Interfaces for distributed computing

Abstract

Conference

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this