Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-01 19:27:05

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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:

Ultimately, for it to be part of CORBA, it does.

* Nothing prevents ORB vendors and open source ORBs to provide support
> for additional non-standard
>   or proposed bindings.

Nope.

And early on, that's just what ORB vendors did...  That's pretty much how
IIOP came about.

> * Nothing prevets boost from supporting open source ORBs as back ends.

This is a great place to start.

> > 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.

I've seen the insides of that can before, and really don't want to take
another look.  Too scary!
:-)

> 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 ;-)

With enough interest and momentum, this may be the best way to push it
through.  Problem is, interest in and momentum behind CORBA is all but gone
these days.

Perhaps you can bring it back.
:-)

> 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.

Which really begs the question as to why it never got better.

Cynically yours,
;-)

Jon