From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-04 12:08:37
Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Jeff Garland <azswdude_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I don't see why this project is any different than any other boost library
>> project. It adds one more library to an aleady large collection.
> Well, CORBA is more than just a "generally useful" library. Using it
> effectively usually requires external runtime services (e.g. NamingService),
> but you know that.
I do, but that doesn't mean I was thinking about it when I was reading this
> It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
> Sorry, if I'm tossing more gas on the fire.
Not at all -- I might have been missing the point that when you start adding
other services (ie: if you tried to rebuild all of the TAO stuff) it's a
massive thing. And that's a good point -- I was coming from the perspective
of just the core orb is really all that would be part of the initial effort.
Anyway, fwiw I think the order of focus priority should be as follows:
1) new binding interface / idl compiler
2) boostified orb
Because I do agree in the end that having another orb is less valuable than
having a modern binding someone would enjoy using. I think that to really do
the new interface you'd have to work the idl compiler piece to do any
experiments of scale. But maybe some examples can be done by hand to get
started and lay down the principles.
Of course, the decision of focus is up to Jon, but there's not many people
that know both Corba and C++ well enough to really start laying out a new
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk