From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-06 10:49:30
Jeff Garland wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> 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
What makes you think that ? ACE (and TAO) has been worked on for a long time.
(The same is true for other ORBs, such as OmniORB.) Do you seriously thinking
an ORB will be 'better' just because it's built on boost.org components ?
> 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.
That, too. I'm just wondering what the intend is, as it seems to me to be
> 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++.
Indeed, that would be good, though judging from history, a process that may be
even longer than TR3. :-)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk