DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploiting the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol Interface to Provide CORBA with Fault Tolerance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploiting the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol Interface to Provide CORBA with Fault Tolerance The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Third USENIX Conference on Object-Oriented Technologies and Systems Portland, Oregon, June 1997 Exploiting the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol Interface to Provide CORBA with Fault Tolerance P. Narasimhan, L. E. Moser, P. M. Melliar-Smith Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of California Santa Barbara, CA For more information about USENIX Association contact: 1. Phone: 510 528-8649 2. FAX: 510 548-5738 3. Email: [email protected] 4. WWW URL: http://www.usenix.org Exploiting the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol Interface to Provide CORBA with Fault Tolerance P. Narasimhan, L. E. Moser, P. M. Melliar-Smith Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Unfortunately, the current CORBA standard makes no provision for fault tolerance, which has led to research The Eternal system is a CORBA 2.0-compliant system that aimed at making CORBA-based applications reliable. One provides, in addition to the location transparency and the approach has been to build the fault-tolerance capabili- interoperability inherent in the CORBA standard, support ties into the ORB itself [16], as in Electra [8, 9] and in for replicated objects and thus fault tolerance. Eternal Orbix+Isis [5]. Another approach, adopted in the Open- exploits the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol (IIOP) interface DREAMS project [3], advocates that reliability be provided to ``attach'' itself transparently to objects operating over as part of the suite of object services available to the a commercial CORBA Object Request Broker (ORB). The ORB. While the former approach makes the fault tolerance Eternal Interceptor captures the IIOP system calls of the transparent to the application, it also involves considerable objects, and the Eternal Replication Manager maps these modification to the CORBA implementation to enable the system calls onto a reliable totally ordered multicast group ORB to take advantage of a multicast group communica- communication system. No modification to the internal tion system underneath it. On the other hand, the latter structure of the ORB is necessary, and fault tolerance approach simply adds an object group service on top of an is provided in a manner that is transparent to both the unmodified ORB, and uses no underlying multicast group application and the ORB. communication system, thereby making the system interop- erable and portable, but with the fault tolerance visible to the application programmer. 1 Introduction The Eternal system that we are developing provides fault tolerance transparently to the application using CORBA, Distributed systems consist of clusters of computers that are without modification to the ORB. The mechanisms for capable of both functioning autonomously and cooperating achieving reliability are hidden from the application pro- harmoniously to achieve a particular task. The integration grammmer, and concern only the system developer. The of an object-oriented paradigm with a distributed computing Eternal system can utilize any commercial implementation platform yields a framework in which objects are distributed of the CORBA 2.0 standard. Although Eternal is layered across the system. Objects invoke other objects, or are over a multicast group communication system, the vendor's themselves invoked, to provide services to the application. ORB does not need to be altered to utilize the fault tolerance The Object Management Group (OMG) has established that Eternal provides. Furthermore, the system is designed the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) to enable objects running over different ORBs to interact [12, 14, 15, 17, 18], which is a standard for communications with each other. middleware that defines interfaces to distributed objects and The Eternal system exploits the services provided by the that provides mechanisms for communicating operations to Totem multicast group communication system [1, 6, 11] to objects by means of messages. The key component of this maintain the consistency of the replicas that are employed architecture is the Object Request Broker (ORB), which for fault tolerance. However, since Eternal only deals with handles requests to, and responses from, the objects in the interfaces of objects and of the ORB, any multicast group distributed system. communication system, with an interface and guarantees similar to those of Totem, can alternatively be used. Research supported in part by DARPA grant N00174-95-K-0083 and by Sun Microsystems and Rockwell International Science Center through the The structure of the Eternal system is shown in Figure 1. State of California MICRO Program grants 96-051 and 96-052. In this paper, we focus on the Interceptor, which ``catches'' Client Server Server Skeleton Object Object Method Method Client Stub Eternal Eternal Evolution Evolution Manager CORBA CORBA Manager ORB ORB Eternal Eternal Resource IIOP Interface IIOP Interface Resource Manager Manager Eternal Eternal Eternal Eternal Replication Interceptor Interceptor Replication Manager Manager Totem Multicast Totem Messages Platform Platform Figure 1: Structure of the Eternal system. the system calls made by the ORB to TCP/IP, and also on the CORBA provides location transparency, meaning that relevant part of the Replication Manager, which diverts the the client objects convey their requests only to their calls to Totem. In addition, Eternal supports the evolution of ORBs, which then undertake the task of locating a suit- a system by exploiting the replication of objects to perform able server object and then dispatching the request to live upgrades of objects and their interfaces. Resource it. Thus, a client object need not be aware of the lo- management is also provided for the creation, placement, cation of a server object since the ORB has access to and distribution of objects. this information. Every CORBA object is identified by an object reference, which is assigned to it by the ORB at the time the object is created. Client objects asso- 2 CORBA and the IIOP Interface ciate object references with their requests to enable the ORB to route their requests to the appropriate destina- The CORBA standard specifies an interface for each dis- tions. tributed object. This interface is written in the declarative The interoperability of CORBA arises in the context syntax of the OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL). of communication between heterogeneous ORBs. Every The language-specific implementation of a server object is CORBA 2.0-compliant ORB is equipped with the ability to hidden from client objects that require the service provided communicate using the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol (IIOP) by the server object; the server object can be invoked only [10, 12], which ensures that objects running over different through its interface. ORBs can interwork when they use the IIOP interface. Only Invocations of objects and responses from invoked ob- the ORB hosting an object needs to know the details of the jects are handled through the ORB, which acts as the inter- object, whileother ORBs that wish to interact withthe object mediary or ``communication bus'' for all of the interactions need only be able to address it. Every object is assigned an between the distributed objects in the system. At a client Interoperable Object Reference (IOR) for this purpose. object, a stub, generated by the IDL compiler, receives the The General Inter-ORB Protocol (GIOP) is a general set request, marshals the call into the format appropriate to the of specifications that enable the messages of the ORB to be request, and passes it to the ORB. At the server object, mapped onto any connection-oriented medium that meets a a language-specific mapping of the IDL specification, a minimal set of assumptions (reliable, byte stream-oriented, skeleton, unmarshals the parameters of the call and per- loss-of-connection notification). The Internet Inter-Orb forms any additional processing to invoke the appropriate Protocol (IIOP) is GIOP with the messages transported by method. The results of the operation are returned to the TCP/IP. By sending IIOP messages over TCP/IP, the ORBs client object via the ORB. can use the Internet as the backbone for their communi- cation. Server objects, that use IIOP to interact with their The services of a process group can be invoked trans- client objects in an environment of heterogeneous ORBs, parently, with no knowledge of its exact membership or the publish their references in the form of IIOP IOR profiles. location of its member processes. Thus, a process in the The primary motivation for the use of IIOP is that system can address all of the members of a process group all CORBA 2.0-compliant implementations can use this (including its own) as a whole, using a multicast group simple generic interface, irrespective of the internal details communication system, such as Totem. A process can send of the vendor's ORB, and the platform on which the ORB messages to one or more process groups, of which it may or operates. A number of commercial ORBs now provide may not be a member. These messages are totally ordered IIOP as their native protocol, since an increasing number of within and across all receiving process groups. CORBA applications require interoperability over different The Totem system provides reliable totally ordered mul- platforms and the ability to operate over the Internet. ticasting of messages to processes in process groups. Each message is assigned a unique timestamp, and these times- 3 The Eternal System tamps establish the total order of delivery of messages to the application. For messages multicast and delivered within the same configuration of processors, Totem provides these The Eternal system is designed to work with any com- message delivery guarantees despite communication and mercial off-the-shelf CORBA 2.0-compliant ORB with no processor faults, message loss, and network partitioning. modification whatsoever to the ORB.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distributed Objects in C
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Theses 2006 Distributed Objects in C# Xiaoyun Xie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Xie, Xiaoyun, "Distributed Objects in C#" (2006). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rochester Institute of Technology Department of Computer Science Master of Science Project Distributed Objects System in C# Submitted By: Xie, Xiaoyun (Sherry) Date: February 2004 Chairman: Dr. Axel T. Schreiner Reader: Dr. Hans-Peter Bischof Observer: Dr. James Heliotis 2 ABSTRACT Today more and more programs run over a collection of autonomous computers linked by a network and are designed to produce an integrated computing facility. Java Distributed Objects (JDO) proposed by Dr. Axel T. Schreiner [1] builds an infrastructure which allows distributed program components to communicate over a network in a transparent, reliable, efficient, and generic way. JDO was originally intended as a teaching device to assess design parameters for distributed objects. This project focuses on porting JDO, which is implemented in Java on Sun’s JDK, to C# on Microsoft’s .NET. On one hand, it builds an infrastructure in C# that simplifies the construction of distributed programs by hiding the distributed nature of remote objects. On the other hand, it generates insights into the differences between two platforms, namely, Java on Sun and C# on .NET, in the distributed objects area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflective Remote Method Invocation
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Computer Science: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications 1998 Reflective Remote Method Invocation George K. Thiruvathukal Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Lovely S. Thomas Andy T. Korczynski Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/cs_facpubs Part of the Programming Languages and Compilers Commons Recommended Citation G. Thiruvathukal, L. Thomas, and A. Korczynski, “Reflective Remote Method Invocation,” in ACM Java Grande, 1998. This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1998 George K. Thiruvathukal, Lovely S. Thomas, and A. Korczynski Reflective Remote Method Invocation G. K. Thiruvathukal1 Tools of Computing LLC and Argonne National Laboratory Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. L. S. Thomas2 Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. A. T. Korczynski3 Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. Abstract Remote Method Invocation (RMI) is available in the current Java language design and implementation, providing the much-needed capability of allowing objects running in different Java processes to collaborate using a variation on the popular Remote Procedure Call (RPC). Although RMI provides features which are desirable for high-performance distributed computing, its design and implementation are deficient in key areas of importance to the high-performance computing community in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Websphere Product Family: Overview and Architecture
    Front cover WebSphere Product Family Overview and Architecture Discover the WebSphere family Take an in-depth look at key products Compare capabilities Carla Sadtler Gennaro Cuomo John Ganci Marc Haberkorn Carol Jones Peter Kovari Kevin Griffith Dildar Marhas Rob Will ibm.com/redbooks International Technical Support Organization WebSphere Product Family Overview and Architecture February 2005 SG24-6963-02 Note: Before using this information and the product it supports, read the information in “Notices” on page xv. Third Edition (February 2005) This edition applies to the WebSphere family. © Copyright International Business Machines Corporation 2004, 2005. All rights reserved. Note to U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights -- Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp. Contents Notices . xv Trademarks . xvi Preface . xvii The team that wrote this redbook. xvii Become a published author . xix Comments welcome. xix Summary of changes . xxi February 2005, Third Edition . xxi Chapter 1. IBM WebSphere product overview . xxiii 1.1 WebSphere overview . xxiv 1.2 WebSphere family . xxv 1.3 IBM WebSphere Application Servers . xxvi 1.3.1 WebSphere Application Server V6 for distributed platforms . xxviii 1.3.2 WebSphere Application Server V5.1. xxxi 1.3.3 WebSphere Extended Deployment V5.1 . xxxiii 1.4 IBM software development platform . xxxv 1.4.1 Application development for WebSphere Application Server V6 . xxxvi 1.4.2 WebSphere Studio and Rational Developer . .xxxvii 1.5 IBM WebSphere Business Integration products . .xliii 1.5.1 Integration servers . xlv 1.5.2 Product overview. xlvi 1.5.3 WebSphere Business Integration Server Foundation . xlvi 1.5.4 WebSphere Business Integration Server .
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
    Remote Procedure Call (RPC) RPC – RMI - Web Services 1 Complexity of the distributed applications . The programming of distributed applications is difficult. In addition to the usual tasks, programmers who build clients and servers must deal with the complex issues of communication. Although many of the needed functions are supplied by a standard API such as the socket interface, the socket calls require the programmer to specify many low level details as names ,addresses,protocols and ports. Moreover, asinchronous communications models are complex to implement. Distributed implementations tend to use the same standard API (e.g.,the socket interface). As a consequence most of the detailed code found in one program is replicated in others RPC – RMI - Web Services 2 . For example, all client programs that use a connection oriented transport must create a socket, specify the server’s endpoint address, open a connection to the server, send requests,receive responses and close the connection when interaction is complete. Tools (software that generates all or part of a computer program) have been created to construct clients and servers. Tools cannot eliminate all programming: a programmer must supply the code that perform the computation for the particular service. However, a tool can handle the communication details. As a result the code contains fever bugs. RPC – RMI - Web Services 3 . RPC = Remote Procedure Call . The basic model has been proposed by Birrell e Nelson in 1984. The essence of this technique is to allow programs on different machines to interact using simple procedure call/return semantics, just as if the two programs were in the same computer .
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Evaluation of .Net Remoting and JAVA RMI Taneem Ibrahim University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Inquiry: The University of Arkansas Undergraduate Research Journal Volume 5 Article 12 Fall 2004 A Comparative Evaluation of .net Remoting and JAVA RMI Taneem Ibrahim University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/inquiry Part of the Computer and Systems Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Ibrahim, Taneem (2004) "A Comparative Evaluation of .net Remoting and JAVA RMI," Inquiry: The University of Arkansas Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol. 5 , Article 12. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/inquiry/vol5/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inquiry: The nivU ersity of Arkansas Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Ibrahim: A Comparative Evaluation of .net Remoting and JAVA RMI 86 INQUIRY Volume 5 2004 A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF .NET REMOTING ANDJAVARMI By: Taneem Ibrahim Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering Faculty Mentor: Dr. Amy Apon Department of Computer Science and Computer Engineering Abstract: Introduction: Distributed application technologies such as A distributed system is a collection of loosely coupled Micrososoft.NEJRemoting, and Java Remote Method Invocation processors interconnected by a communication network [8]. (RMI) have evolved over many years to keep up with the From tbe point view of a specific processor in a distributed constantly increasing requirements of the enterprise. In the system, the rest of the processors and their respective resources broadest sense, a distributed application is one in which the are remote, whereas its own resources are local.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Objects
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery Distributed Objects Wolfgang Emmerich Neil Roodyn Dept. of Computer Science Cognitech Ltd University College London City Cloisters, 188-194 Old Street London WC1E 6BT,UK London EC1V 9FR, UK [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT be addressed. In addition, any distributed application must This tutorial motivates the need for, and discusses the prin- be tolerant of failures, such as temporarily unreachable com- ciples of object-oriented distribution middleware. We will ponents or network time-outs. Dealing with these issues at give an overview how these principles are supported by the the network operating system layer is overly complicated for major incarnations of object-oriented middleware, the Ob- an application engineer. ject Management Group’s Common Object Request Broker Distribution middleware is layered between network operat- Architecture (CORBA), Microsoft’s Distributed Component ing systems and distributed applications in order to bridge Object Model (DCOM) and Java’s Remote Method Invoca- this gap. Middleware provides the application designer with tion (RMI). We will discuss common design problems that a higher-level of abstraction. Middleware systems imple- occur when building applications using distributed objects ment this higher level of abstraction based on primitives that and present techniques for their solution. are provided by network operating systems. While doing so 1 INTRODUCTION they hide the complexity of using a network operating sys- In a number of domains, such as the financial and telecom- tem from application designers. The idea of middleware is munications sector, applications have to be adapted to evolv- not new.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Objects
    Introduction to Distributed Objects The idea of distributed objects is an extension of the concept of remote procedure calls. In a remote procedure call system (Sun RPC, DCE RPC, Java RMI), code is executed remotely via a remote procedure call. The unit of distribution is the procedure / function /method (used as synonyms). So the client has to import a client stub (either manually as in RPC or automatically as in RMI) to allow it to connect to the server offering the remote procedure. Object as Distribution Unit In a system for distributed objects, the unit of distribution is the object. That is, a client imports a ”something” (in Java’s JINI system, it’s called a proxy) which allows the client access to the remote object as if it were part of the original client program (as with RPC and RMI, sort of transparently). A client actually imports a Java class and this becomes part of the set of classes available on the client machine. So, for example, the client can define subclasses of this imported class, overload methods, etc. In addition, distributed object systems provide additional services, like a discovery service that allows clients to locate the objects they need, security services, reliability services, etc. Distributed object technologies: 1. DCOM (Distributed Common Object Model), developed by Microsoft, but also available on other platforms. Built on top of DCE’s RPC, interacts with COM. 2. CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture), defined by the Object Management Group, an industry consortium. CORBA is available for most major operating systems 3. JINI (“Genie,” JINI is not initials — a joke; JINI actually doesn’t stand for anything.) JINI is developed on top of Java.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Object Based Systems
    Distributed Systems Distributed Object-Based Systems Björn Franke University of Edinburgh, 2015 OVERVIEW • Basic Concepts • Middleware Technologies • CORBA • DCOM • .NET Remote Procedure Calls/Windows Communication Foundation • Google gRPC BASIC CONCEPTS REMOTE PROCEDURE CALLS (RPC) BASIC CONCEPTS REMOTE PROCEDURE CALLS (RPC) BASIC CONCEPTS MARSHALLING/UNMARSHALLING MIDDLEWARE TECHNOLOGIES HIGH-LEVEL VIEW MIDDLEWARE TECHNOLOGIES SLIGHTLY MORE DETAIL • High-level abstractions & API • Heterogeneity Hidden • Transparent Distribution • General purpose services e.g. directory/naming CORBA COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE • Industry-defined standard for distributed objects • Enables collaboration between systems on different operating systems, programming languages, and computing hardware • Interface definition language (IDL) to specify object interfaces. CORBA then specifies a mapping from IDL to a specific implementation language. • Central: Object request brokers (ORBs) • Application initialises ORB, and accesses an internal Object Adapter, which maintains things like reference counting, object (and reference) instantiation policies, and object lifetime policies. • Object Adapter is used to register instances of the generated code classes (result of compiling the user IDL code, which translates interface definitions into an OS- and language-specific class base for use by the user application). CORBA GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE • The Object Request Broker (ORB) forms the core of any CORBA distributed system. • Horizontal facilities consist
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Computing Paradigms Distributed Application Paradigms
    Distributed Computing Paradigms Distributed Application Paradigms level of abstraction high object space network services, object request broker, mobile agent remote procedure call, remote method invocation client-server message passing low The Message Passing Paradigm Message passing is the most fundamental paradigm for distributed applications. A process sends a message representing a request. The message is delivered to a receiver, which processes the request, and sends a message in response. In turn, the reply may trigger a further request, which leads to a subsequent reply, and so forth. Process A Process B a message Me ssage passing The Message Passing Paradigm The basic operations required to support the basic message passing paradigm are send, and receive. For connection-oriented communication, the operations connect and disconnect are also required. With the abstraction provided by this model, the interconnected processes perform input and output to each other, in a manner similar to file I/O. The I/O operations encapsulate the detail of network communication at the operating-system level. The socket application programming interface is based on this paradigm. http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/docs/api/index.html http://www.sockets.com/ The Client-Server Paradigm Perhaps the best known paradigm for network applications, the client-server model assigns asymmetric roles to two collaborating processes. One process, the server, plays the role of a service provider which waits passively for the arrival of requests. The other, the client, issues specific requests to the server and awaits its response. service request a client process a server process Server host a service Client host ..
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Computing Paradigms
    Distributed Computing Paradigms Mei-Ling Liu Distributed Computing Paradigms, 5/8/2007 M. Liu 1 Paradigms for Distributed Applications Paradigm means “a pattern, example, or model.” In the study of any subject of great complexity, it is useful to identify the basic patterns or models, and classify the detail according to these models. This paper aims to present a classification of the paradigms for distributed applications. Characteristics that distinguish distributed applications from conventional applications which run on a single machine. These characteristics are: w Interprocess communication: A distributed application require the participation of two or more independent entities (processes). To do so, the processes must have the ability to exchange data among themselves. w Event synchronization: In a distributed application, the sending and receiving of data among the participants of a distributed application must be synchronized. Distributed Computing Paradigms, 5/8/2007 M. Liu 2 Abstractions Arguably the most fundamental concept in computer science, abstraction is the idea of detail hiding. To quote David J. Barnes1: We often use abstraction when it is not necessary to know the exact details of how something works or is represented, because we can still make use of it in its simplified form. Getting involved with the detail often tends to obscure what we are trying to understand, rather than illuminate it … Abstraction plays a very important role in programming because we often want to model, in software, simplified versions of things that exist in the real world … without having to build the real things. In software engineering, abstraction is realized with the provision of tools or facilities which allow software to be built without the developer having to be cognizant of some of the underlying complexities.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Object Systems
    Distributed Systems Distributed Object-Based Systems Björn Franke University of Edinburgh, 2016 OVERVIEW • Basic Concepts • Middleware Technologies • Apache Ignite (see coursework lecture) • CORBA • DCOM • .NET Remote Procedure Calls/Windows Communication Foundation • Google gRPC BASIC CONCEPTS REMOTE PROCEDURE CALLS (RPC) BASIC CONCEPTS REMOTE PROCEDURE CALLS (RPC) BASIC CONCEPTS MARSHALLING/UNMARSHALLING MIDDLEWARE TECHNOLOGIES HIGH-LEVEL VIEW MIDDLEWARE TECHNOLOGIES SLIGHTLY MORE DETAIL • High-level abstractions & API • Heterogeneity Hidden • Transparent Distribution • General purpose services e.g. directory/naming CORBA COMMON OBJECT REQUEST BROKER ARCHITECTURE • Industry-defined standard for distributed objects • Enables collaboration between systems on different operating systems, programming languages, and computing hardware • Interface definition language (IDL) to specify object interfaces. CORBA then specifies a mapping from IDL to a specific implementation language. • Central: Object request brokers (ORBs) • Application initialises ORB, and accesses an internal Object Adapter, which maintains things like reference counting, object (and reference) instantiation policies, and object lifetime policies. • Object Adapter is used to register instances of the generated code classes (result of compiling the user IDL code, which translates interface definitions into an OS- and language-specific class base for use by the user application). CORBA GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE • The Object Request Broker (ORB) forms the core of any CORBA distributed
    [Show full text]
  • Portable Serialization of CORBA Objects: a Reflective Approach Marc-Olivier Killijian Juan-Carlos Ruiz Jean-Charles Fabre LAAS-CNRS LAAS-CNRS LAAS-CNRS 7, Av
    Portable Serialization of CORBA Objects: a Reflective Approach Marc-Olivier Killijian Juan-Carlos Ruiz Jean-Charles Fabre LAAS-CNRS LAAS-CNRS LAAS-CNRS 7, Av. du Colonel Roche 7, Av. du Colonel Roche 7, Av. du Colonel Roche 31077 Toulouse Cedex 4 (France) 31077 Toulouse Cedex 4 (France) 31077 Toulouse Cedex 4 (France) +33.5.61.33.62.41 +33.5.61.33.69.09 +33.5.61.33.62.36 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT resulting from different programming languages. We use in this paper the terms portable and language (and platform) The objective of this work is to define, implement and independent interchangeably. illustrate a portable serialization technique for CORBA objects. We propose an approach based on reflection: through Serialization in a homogeneous environment has been studied open compilers facilities the internal state of CORBA objects quite extensively, e.g. in [1] [2]. This is not the case of is obtained and transformed into a language independent serialization in heterogeneous environments where works like format using CORBA mechanisms. This state can be restored [3] [4] focus on platform interoperability but not on language and used by objects developed using different languages and portability. Our objective in this work is to provide facilities running on different software platforms. A tool was developed to serialize and de-serialize CORBA objects in a portable and applied to a Chat application as a case study. The format. We introduce an abstract model of object state so that a proposed technique is used to exchange state information serialized state is interoperable and portable.
    [Show full text]