Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-02 08:05:20

Hi,

I understand from this discussion that there are two separate potential new
libraries:

- a library  focused on strict CORBA compliance
- a modern version designed for the web

The Thrift library, which is open-source and uses some Boost libraries would
be a good case study for designing the second library
http://developers.facebook.com/thrift/thrift-20070401.pdf

I am personally interested in the second library

Regards
jose

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Stefano Delli Ponti <
stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> (Duplicated post, the previous one was not complete - sorry)
>
> Hello Jon,
>
> Jonathan Biggar wrote:
> > I've been working on a C++ CORBA implementation for a long time.  I've
> > considered making it open source in the past, but I hadn't seen the
> > exact niche for it to fill.
> >
> > Now that Boost 1.35 is out, including ASIO and the new Threads
> > implementation, I'm considering retargeting my implementation to only
> > use boost libraries for underlying services.
> >
> > I'd be quite happy to contribute my implementation to boost, if there's
> > enough interest for me to proceed.
> >
> > So, what do you all think?
> >
>
> That's wonderful!
>
> (I am so happy also because I know, being a long-time CORBA user, the
> expertise of Jonathan and his contributions to the standard).
>
> Some considerations:
>
> - I think that many on this list underestimate the importance that CORBA
> has still today. For large client-server/distributed applications there
> aren't yet many valid alternatives.
> - The main benefit of CORBA is its cross-platform, cross-language
> nature: our C++ distributed application is accessible through C++, Java,
>  Python, COM, .Net in Solaris, Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.
> - There are very good open-source implementations, like TAO and OmniORB,
> with great support facilities.
> - The main drawback of CORBA is probably its awkward C++ binding (as Jon
> said, there were many /historic/ reasons). I know that an effort for a
> new binding began some months ago at OMG: I am not updated on that one.
>
> TAO is a robust implementation based on ACE. ACE is a large C++
> framework, which implements many network-related pattens. Boost is now
> entering the ACE's territory with a much more modern C++ perspective but
> it still lacks many features (waiting for pion-net/cpp-netib, log et
> al.). But, as Jon said, Boost has now the functionalities needed to
> build an ORB.
>
> I see many benefits about a Boost ORB:
> - A modern C++ implementation
> - A place to experiment with new bindings and other things
> - A large piece of code that reuse and test a lot of other Boost libraries
>
> I would use such a beast immediately on the client-side.
>
> So, let's do it.
> I would be glad to contribute.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stefano
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>