Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Jonathan Biggar (jon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-01 23:00:50

Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Biggar <jon_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I'd be inclined scrap everything but IIOP (even that is debatable), and
> create something more lightweight, picking and choosing the bits from the
> CORBA architecture that make sense.  Don't bother with the OMG, and make it
> *not* CORBA (per se).  Eventually standardize the wire protocol and language
> bindings w/ some standards body.  And in essence, build something Awesome
> that people actually *want* to use.
> 
> Cutting OMG and any sort of CORBA compliance out of the picture, I'd even be
> willing to help... A lot.
> :-)

Well, you can feel that way, but that rather chops my proposal out entirely.

I think you're giving CORBA a bad rap.  Yes there are klunky parts of 
the standard (contexts, anyone?), but if you ignore them and redesign 
the C++ binding, what's left is quite workable.

And I think the chances of standardizing a CORBA replacement that is 
multi-language and multi-platform is pretty much nil.

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