next C++
up Software Infrastructure
previous Operating Environment
PDF version   PostScript version

Programming and Deployment Platform

We will now review the core technologies used both inside, and in conjunction with XMLbroker--and justify why a technology has been favoured against another.
Table 3.1 presents some candidate programming languages with their associated environments.

Table 3.1: Semi-quantitative comparison of programming languages and their APIs. XML parsing is not considered a discriminating factor because of the wide availability of parsers for all the languages considered.
Language HTTP Business Support for Language Productivity
networking objects middleware experience
C++ Libwww, through templates,
CGI CORBA native to OS
Perl CGI - reg. ex.,
module shell integr.
Python diverse Zope reflection,
modules products Zope app. serv.
Java servlet EJB J2EE, reflection,
API classloader,...

The first two columns, labelled HTTP networking and business objects, correspond to the two levels of `plugability' of XMLbroker into its environment. Whereas these will be discussed in the next section, we only consider here their level of support by the APIs associated with the different languages. The column labelled support for middleware displays the features associated with the languages, that present a particular interest in the context of middleware--mainly by allowing meta-programming (c.f. Section [*]).
The last column presents a productivity rating associated with the diverse languages. It is adapted from (Prechelt, 2000) and is given irrespectively of any experience with the languages.

next C++
up Software Infrastructure
previous Operating Environment

Copyright © 2001 Jean-Marc Rosengard