On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Reginald Stadlbauer wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, weis@stud.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Kay Roemer convinced my yesterday that I should try to strip mico
>>as good as possible to get a slim version. I was very sceptical
>>but here is what I did:
(...)
>>And here is what I got :-)
>>
>>a) An ORB that compiles on a single PII400 in 3min,10secs!!!
>>b) [weis@teutates weis]$ ls -l /opt/mico/lib/libtinymico2.2.7.so
>>   -r-xr-xr-x   1 weis     users     1826776
>>   1.8MB !!!!!
>>c) The size of the account example is 43kB instead of 100Kb now!
>>
>>With the real STL I got 2.6 MB and 100kB accont example.
>>The rest of the optimization was done with mini-stl.
>>As you can see STL sucks !!!!!
>>
>>I am soooooo happy :-)
>
>That's great news! Will we switch to such a tinyMico?

Er... this means we are kind of forking the tree. Unless Kay  provides some
kind of #ifdef TINYMICO or --tiny-mico configure option.

If we don't use that STL (mini or true) who does then? Mico itself?

As far as I understood there still should be change in IDL to make "Qt-like
source" . Will then (mini) STL still be needed?

-- 
Sven Radej      radej@kde.org
KDE developer   Visit http://www.kde.org