Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Jonathan Biggar (jon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-01 20:09:10

Jonathan Franklin wrote:
>> 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.

Being on the inside of OMG shortly after the first C++ binding was 
adopted, I can tell you it really was a can of worms.   There was 
initially a much more OO proposal that was almost adopted, but a certain 
member organization (I'll leave it nameless to protect the guilty) 
insisted that the C++ binding had to be binary link-compatible with the 
adopted C binding, so we got the messy one we have now.  Never mind that 
the link-compatibility turned out to be more of a pipe-dream than a reality.

As far as re-engineering the C++ binding, it will almost certainly have 
to be done by someone outside the OMG and presented as a completed work. 
    The ORB vendors (probably appropriately) never saw a business case 
to implement and support a second C++ binding.

I'm certainly game to participate in re-engineering the binding, but I 
think it would be a good idea to get what I can contribute in place as a 
solid boost library first.

-- 
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
jon_at_[hidden]
jon_at_[hidden]