From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-06 10:31:55
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>>> Ames Andreas wrote:
>>>> I beg to differ, at least somehow. Although I'm with you, that a
>>>> whole ORB implementation would not even remotely be feasible, I think
>>>> a more constraint approach could be both interesting and useful.
>> I've added a note to the Wiki to this effect -- hopefully warning students
>> away. I see no way that this project is feasible within the time constraints
>> of an SoC project, so it's unlikely that the mentoring team will approve it.
>> The scope would need to be much more limited and defined.
> Out of curiosity: What's the relationship between an ORB and boost.org, and
> why would boost.org want to have its own ?
Good question. Some would probably like to have an ORB solution based on
Boost because it would be 'lighter weight' than an ACE/TAO solution. The
problem I see is that there's alot of stuff needed to use an ORB (like an IDL
compiler) that Boost won't have. So, for a long time you'd wind up with
ACE/TAO and Boost.
A project that would align more closely with the Boost mission would be a redo
of the CORBA binding (it's awful) for C++ using TR1 and other modern C++.
This might be more of a design and prototype project that would require both
Boost (for things like smart ptrs) and TAO. That's probably too big a
project for SoC, but it would be working with a current well defined
interface. And there wouldn't be any illusion that it would be going into
Boost right away...although that makes is less attractive as a Boost project.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk