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]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk