[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: the MICO/CORBA issue.
From:       Kurt Granroth <granroth () kde ! org>
Date:       1999-09-19 20:46:26
[Download RAW message or body]

David Faure wrote:
[orbit]
> Who would be happy with a broken CORBA implementation which 
> is much less robust than MICO, and contains one third of its
> features ?

Some things to note: IF Orbit had the features that we wanted AND it
was robust in those areas, then who cares if it is not fully 2.1
complient.  We aren't using 1/10 of all CORBA offers anyway.

I seem to remember only two "true" knocks against Orbit in the past --
it had no C++ binding and it did no error checking while marshalling
data.  I was under the assumption that both are now either fixed or
are in the process of being fixed.

Is there any other issue which shows a "broken" implementation or
displays a lack of robustness for what we need?

For the record, I don't think we should always dismiss Orbit.  From
what I can tell, it is incredibly efficient.  The fabled "tinyMico"
may or may not be as effecient... we don't know as it doesn't yet
exist!
-- 
Kurt Granroth            | granroth@kde.org
KDE Developer/Evangelist | http://www.pobox.com/~kurt_granroth
        KDE -- Putting a Friendly Face on Linux

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]