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