Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-01 19:59:58

Jonathan Franklin skrev:
> 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.
>   

Sure, and that should probably be a goal.  But bits of CORBA can be used 
for many usefull things.  A C++ binding that support IIOP and other 
useful transports come to mind.  If it is flexible, powefull, etc.  
Users may not care much whether it is OMG approved.

> * 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.
>   

right.

>> * Nothing prevets boost from supporting open source ORBs as back ends.
>>     
>
>
> This is a great place to start.
>   

agree

>>> 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!
> :-)
>   

I would never ask you to do that then!

>> 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.
> :-)
>   

Well, that is much to much to hope for.  I for one do however think much 
of the de-hype og CORBA is do to the hype of other newer and in many 
cases much less usefull middleware solutions.  CORBA implementations are 
free these days, so mobody earn much on hyping CORBA any more.  Kind of 
prooves the point of making standards.  People can choose their 
implementation.  And they choose the best they can get for less money - 
surprice...  The big time CORBA vendors realized this, dumped CORBA and 
created as much friction as they could in OMG.  Web services and all 
their assosiated  non-standarized propriatory frameworks on the other 
hand are an eldorado for comercial tie-up these days, and it has been so 
for some time. 

>> 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.
>   

Good point, pretty much shows that OMG has had their focus elsewhere.

-- 
Bjørn