From: Stefano Delli Ponti (stefano.delliponti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-04 10:53:02
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 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.
> 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
- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk