Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 18:37:51

Jonathan Biggar wrote:

> So there appears to be some interest, and even more interest if it leads 
> to developing a new more modern C++ binding for CORBA.  But having an 
> implementation of the current binding would be a huge start for that.

I don't quite agree. In particular, I think the phrasing above is quite 
a bit misleading: I wouldn't characterize an ORB as an 'implementation 
of a C++ binding'. And I also don't agree that a new ORB implementation 
is required as a prerequisite for a new C++ binding.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that I don't see any value in yet 
another ORB. Lots of time has been spent on existing ones to get decent 
performance, etc., and I think it's just naive and foolish to start all 
over, just to be able to pretend that this one is built with boost. Yet 
another case of Not-Invented-Here ?

Pick a good, free, ORB (the two choices that immediately come to mind 
are omniORB and TAO), and try to make modifications so it can be used 
with an alternate C++ binding. I think this would be a much more 
reasonable plan to move forward.

Regards,
                Stefan

-- 
       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...