Part One: The Myth of Ur and Mobile Object Solutions

By MG on January 23, 2008 11:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Introduction

In the Tenth Book, the final book, of Plato's Republic, we find the final expression of Socrate's long reductio ad absurdum of utopian theories of social systems to a group of Athenians ironically hiding in Cephalus' house to avoid mingling with foreigners. Young Socrates voices his ultimate wisdom in the desire to be "a plain man who minds his own business". Here at Topia (place), the opposite of utopia (no place), we too have our feet firmly planted on solid ground, eschewing elixirs, panaceas, cure-alls and magic bullets. There is a lot you could do with mobile objects that you should not do. Our can do does not blind us to what one should and should not do. How can we assess where mobility is indicated as the best or better solution? We too want to be and are plain individuals who mind our business, which is mobile object technology (MOT) and, more specifically, Kolona MOT. This is the first part of a multi-part discussion of this question.

Nothing could be more injurious to the future of mobile object technology than to try to force it to do what it is not meant to do well. Mobile objects will never replace the fundamental Internet browser technology. A static request with a response is just what the doctor ordered for HTTP and the World Wide Web (www). Yet the Web would be fairly useless and dull without JavaScript, Flash, Applets, DCOM, Ajax, and the like, most of which are mobile code (however, not mobile objects). The need to have a distributed connection between the browser user and websites is clear enough. The need to supplant this connection with hidden, transparent, technologies invoking the assistance of browser plugins in the static HTML or DHTML is also clear. Eye popping dynamism jumps out off those static Web pages.

Mobile object solutions are like mobile code solutions on the Web. They are background solutions that are invisible or in the background yet the source of evident pizzaz.

Let's remember our discussion of the core, the kernel, the essence, of mobile object technology in the earlier blog "Camelot: What Do Simple Objects Do?". Mobile objects are an amalgam of local and distributed object communications. Where neither distributed nor local communications alone can solve a problem, mobile object technology is helpful. And, let's remember our discussion of the advantages of mobile object technology in the earlier blog "Mobile Code: Excitement on a Barren Internet Landscape".

1. Mobile objects reduce network traffic by transforming network conversations to local conversations making ongoing connections and data transfers unnecessary (reducing chatter).

2. Mobile objects reduce network load by going to where the data is rather than sending the data to where the processing is (reducing throughput).

3. Data exchange in distributed systems involves protocols that evolve. Mobile code can provide evolving adapters that handle legacy protocol channels without disturbing the network system.

4. Mobile devices rely on fragile networks. Mobile objects operate asynchronously and autonomously. Loss of connections does not affect the viability of mobile object code.

5. Mobile objects can sense their execution environment and react autonomously to changes. Multiple mobile objects, for example, can configure themselves in a network to optimally provide a solution.

6. Since mobile objects are computer and transport independent (they live within the mobile object runtime environment), they provide for seamless system integration.

7. Mobile objects ability to react dynamically to unfavorable situations make it easier to build robust and fault-tolerant systems.

8. There are no “killer mobile object applications” but merely applications that use mobile objects, or mobility, to their advantage. Mobility is a facet, not a defining feature, of applications that use mobility as a solution. The addition of a mobile object runtime environment brings potential to a distributed system not otherwise present.

9. Mobile objects are well suited to eCommerce because they (and no other distributed functionality) give real-time access to remote resources.

10. Mobile objects make excellent network assistants on behalf of their creators. For example, six mobile object representatives of six businessmen can meet at some common host and agree upon a time to meet.

11. If there are collaborators that do not trust one another, the mobile objects can so with a secure, trusted, third party host for collaborative purposes.

12. You can dispatch mobile objects to large volumes of data to create search indexes over time periods when the original machine may be down.

13. In large-scale networks requiring reconfiguration and user customization, mobile objects are useful as glue keeping the system together.

14. As workflow items, mobile objects embody the information and behavior they need to move through an organization independent of any particular application.

15. A mobile object can monitor a host without a need to stay in contact with its origins.

16. Mobile objects life spans can exceed that of their creator processes, e.g., for monitoring hosts.

17. Mobile objects incorporate a push model of communication and can be used to disseminate information (new, software updates). This is done independent of the originating process.

18. Mobile objects can clone themselves for purposes of parallel computing jobs.

How can we break down what mobile objects do to see what makes these uses the advantages of mobile object technology rather than just uses that could be perhaps better done with other technologies. There is a hint, if we remember prior blogs:

Atomic Capability One: mobile object technology can move code to cooperate with local code on a target system.
Atomic Capability Two: mobile object technology allows a remote source to monitor, control, etc. what is happening on a target system or target systems.

This is but a beginning. In Part Two we will look into and discuss the details of these two interactive capabilities and how they can illuminate deciding where and when to use mobile objects in distributed solutions.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Part One: The Myth of Ur and Mobile Object Solutions.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogadmin.topiatechnology.com/mt-tb.cgi/15

Part One: The Myth of Ur and Mobile Object Solutions

0 TrackBacks

About this Entry

Search