From kde-core-devel Mon Sep 20 03:59:57 1999 From: Sirtaj Singh Kang Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:59:57 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: the MICO/CORBA issue. X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=93779999713096 On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, David Faure wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:13:48AM +0200, Dirk A. Mueller wrote: > > David Faure wrote: > > > > > That wouldn't help us in any way : using an ORB instead of another > > > still means using STL or implementation-specific collections, instead > > > of the ones we have already in memory : QTL. > > > > But ;) Orbit has a memory footprint of about 1.3 MB. > > > > Mico uses 5.7MB here. > > > > Low-memory systems would be happy about that.. > > Who would be happy with a broken CORBA implementation which > is much less robust than MICO, and contains one third of its > features ? Somebody recently asked me if "we" had done a serious evaluation of ORBit to check how complete it was and whether or not it was good enough for us to replace mico with it. I said no at the time, but has it been done? Has any of you CORBA hackers had a good look at ORBit (my knowledge of CORBA stops at the the account examples unfortunately)? Since we don't seem to be using mico's COSS now, perhaps ORBit may be feature-complete enough, and it is a hell of a lot smaller... If I'm being clueless, ignore me. -Taj. Sirtaj S. Kang taj@kde.org ssk@physics.unimelb.edu.au Univ of Melbourne The "gui" in "Penguin" is pronounced "K-D-E"