[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 6:56:42
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 01:46:26PM -0700, Kurt Granroth wrote:
> 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!
We're working on it ! It already exists !

No other ORB we can chose can be as easy-to-use as 'cute', the one
we're creating right now (see kdelibs/corba/cuteidl), because none
has direct marshalling code for Qt types.

-- 
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]