Re: [boost] CORBA iimplementation for Boost interest?

From: Stefano Delli Ponti (stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-04 10:53:02

Hello Stefan,

Stefan Seefeld wrote:

<snip/>
> 
> So, I'd rather see a focus on a new C++ binding instead of constantly 
> getting side-tracked into tangential projects that I believe don't 
> provide as much value to this community.
> 
<snip/>
> To me this whole project of experimenting with a new C++ binding is more 
> of a sandbox project anyways, that would profit from the experience of 
> the boost community with the C++ language. So, in the end, an actual 
> implementation could very well be contributed to whatever ORB was used 
> to do the experimentation with.

While I understand your concerns, I do not agree.

My points are:

- Jon is offering an already implemented ORB with an IDL parser: while 
the parser front-end will probably need a complete rewrite, the rest of 
the code needs only some refactoring due to the /boostification/. He is 
not going to implement the whole _huge_ thing from scratch.

- I think, like Jeff Garland, that Boost is the right place to discuss 
about a new C++ mapping: not only because many C++ experts follow this 
forum, but also because this is a very _active_ place, while the same 
cannot be said for the majority of CORBA groups, excluding perhaps 
comp.soft-sys.ace. Having a Boost ORB could be the best way to have the 
right focus here.

- An ORB using the Boost libraries underneath has the advantage, like 
Jon said, to ease the integration within applications using the same 
libraries.

- I don't think one should always see these initiatives as the effect of 
a NIH syndrome. Competition is good also for open source projects. 
Besides, the effort for a new C++ binding could start here but it could 
receive the support and the advices of e.g. the ACE/TAO and OmniORB 
communities.

Best regards,
Stefano