Talk:Common Object Request Broker Architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modification note (7/1/2003)
I just thought I'd clear this up to avoid a mod-war. IDL stands for Interface Definition Language, *not* Interface "Description" Language. It was recently changed incorrectly to the latter. I've put it back the way that it was. See the CORBA spec p 3-1.
(Derek)
I noticed that someone broke my change above when doing some edits. I've re-edited it so that it is now correct once more.
(Derek)
Contents |
[edit] CORBA/Common object request broker architecture
68.167.249.197 23:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC): I'd suggest that it is standard practice to have the main article body for CORBA/Common object request broker architecture to be under the fully expanded version of the name (cf. Remote procedure call/RPC, and File transfer protocol/FTP to name two examples).
- That's right! I am sexy 23:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I would argue that File transfer protocol should be moved to FTP, though Remote procedure call should stay as it is. This is because there is not just one file transfer protocol. Having a page title like "File transfer protocol" or "Common object request broker architecture" implies that there is more than one - for example - "a file transfer protocol is..." or "a common object request broker architecture", whilst "an FTP" or "a CORBA" is less appropriate. Dysprosia 06:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- 68.167.249.2 09:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): Admittedly "file transfer protocol" can be generically used, but I disagree about "common object request broker architecture" which has established itself as a specific standard. That is emphasized outside of wikipedia by capitalizing all the words. Additional examples, like OSI, DNS, SNMP, LAN, FDDI, SMTP, ICMP, RARP all redirect to the full words, though HTTP doesn't.
[edit] an exception proving the rule; disambig COBRA and CORBA
68.167.249.197 00:03, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): One good standard practice within wikipedia is to not disambiguate misspellings. I agree that this is a good guideline to follow. As I also note at Talk:COBRA, I would contend that COBRA vs. CORBA is a case where the exception proves the rule. This is a case of two five-letter acronyms, which is unusual. For two acronyms of that length (and, to get perhaps overly analytical about it, the fact that B and R are both typed by the left index finger on a QWERTY keyboard), isn't a reasonable to anticipate our audience would appreciate such a disambiguation here? I would never advocate disambiguation for TLAs. but this seems a case where a good rule has a reasonable exception.
- 68.167.249.2 09:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC): Dysprosia's suggestion elsewhere of a disambiguation block prefacing the CORBA page seems like the best of both worlds to resolve this.
[edit] KDE Using CORBA
Wasn't KDE using CORBA and then dropped it? 81.151.193.21 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- That was GNOME, I believe; KDE fanboys at the time often pointed to the CORBA-usage as a sign of the over-engineering which they believed plagued the GNOME project. --217.128.105.9 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- The CORBA in GNOME is not dropped and still used. Audriusa 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images?
Hi. What are these supposed to indicate? 
Why are they not defined? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 01:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Developmant Status. In researching the links I found project which are not fully developed and/or which have not been updated for many years. With the % rating on what to expect when following the link. If you know the project and find the rating unfair you are free to correct - just be honest - a project with barely make minimum feature set and has seen no update for 3 years should not be marked 100%. --Krischik 06:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok, thanks for the info. I don't mind their use, but in the article it should be defined what they represent.. and then what the various implementations are lacking (justification of each 50% rating for example). They won't be able to be interpreted usefully otherwise. --ChrisRuvolo 16:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Current status
Information about the current status of CORBA is needed. What alternatives are there? Is it evolving? Are there new developments that use CORBA?
[edit] VMCID
Is the VMCID really important enough to deserve an article? For that matter, is it even worthwhile to merge into the CORBA article? Wikipedia isn't a comprehensive reference guide for CORBA. That's what the CORBA specs are for. -- Whpq 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this. An article (or section) on VMCID, in my opinion, doesn't have enough encyclopedic value to justify an article on Wikipedia. That sort of thing belongs in a programmer's handbook. --Tschel 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The criticisms and success sections
The language of these sections seems more like an internet flame war than an encyclopedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.25.80.243 (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
