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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: RE: cuteidl -- maybe we should give a thought to OmniORB
From:       David Faure <faure () kde ! org>
Date:       1999-09-21 20:47:45
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 03:38:37PM -0500, Lotzi Boloni wrote:
> > Well, this OTOH would kill cuteidl.
> 
>   No, why? I am speaking about the ORB, not about the IDL. I know that
> they are interdependent but unless I have a very bad understanding of what
> is going on, cuteIDL is a new mapping, essentially idl2qt or idl2kde
> instead of idl2c++. And it uses MICO as ORB. 

It's rather IDL to (Qt/C++)  instead of  IDL to (CORBA::* types)

>   So you can reuse most of the code and use the other ORB instead, because
> the mashalling code should be the same (if I am not an absolute idiot).

I'm not sure about that part at all. The marshalling code is really
dependent on the ORB's implementation. Oh sure, it's probably possible
to do it with any ORB (provided that it's as modular as MICO is), but
that's even more work, it's not something obvious.
And we're only making assumptions here, whereas we already have something
working well if we keep MICO (and keep improving it).
And as it seems we can turn our ORB into whatever we want it to be,
why switch to another one ? We would have to turn that other one into
what we want it to be, so we gain nothing by switching. (headaches perhaps ?).

-- 
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]