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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: the MICO/CORBA issue.
From:       David Faure <faure () kde ! org>
Date:       1999-09-20 6:55:27
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, David Faure wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 11:13:48AM +0200, Dirk A. Mueller wrote:
> > > David Faure <faure@kde.org> 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...

We use --disable-coss when compiling mico, so I don't see why COSS makes any difference :)

About evaaluating ORBit, I think that's what Torben did before he told
us about the lack of error-checking, ...

-- 
David FAURE
david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://www.insa-lyon.fr/People/AEDI/dfaure/index.html 
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

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