From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-01 19:17:27
Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> A new binding would have to be pushed through the OMG.
I am not sure it *has* to. As far as I see it, nothing prevents one
from proposing a new mapping. But long before that is needed:
* Nothing prevents ORB vendors and open source ORBs to provide support
for additional non-standard
or proposed bindings.
* Nothing prevets boost from supporting open source ORBs as back ends.
* Nothing prevents boost from supporting a new binding to old binding
adaptors for those unhappy fellows
stuck with an old ORB or hard to convince vendor. It may not even
need to copy data as
CORBA::Sequence has a continious storage requirement similar to
std::vector and ownership
transfer semantics. CORBA C++ Strings are essentially character buffers.
Probably if it is as successfull as we may wish and hope, someone at OMG
has got the point and adapted it, and the problem never materialized.
> I don't even want to
> *think* of the can of worms you'll probably open there.
Right!!! But who are you to know before you take the lid off. Maybe it
is welcomed by many and get strong support. A proposal based on a boost
project or library may have some leverage in the C++ comunity, and in
OMG the benifit of neutral ground ;-)
> I've been wishing for even a semi-rational IDL-C++binding since prior to 00.
Yes -- you, me and probably anybody else with more than half a brain
using C++ and CORBA.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk