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.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk