On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Bavo De Ridder wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> >Simon Hausmann wrote:
> >[LOTS OF STUFF]
> >
> >Do I understand the problem correctly by stating that we need:
> >
> >* A uniform way to find the naming/service cq. trader.
> >
> >* A uniform way (idl?) to access this service.
> >
> >* A naming scheme (capabilities scheme?) shared across both 
> >  desktops. 
> >
> >That is then enough for an application to get a reference to
> >the required CORBA service object.
> >
> >The naming server/trader (which one do we preferably use?)
> >will need to know which CORBA services exist and how to 
> >activate them. If we can't agree on a common scheme for this,
> >it should still be possible to support both scheme's right?
> >
> 
> No decisions to take, all this already exists: CORBA Component Model. Which
> Naming Service to use ??? COS Naming Services of course. This is the only
> standard-one. There is absolutely no need to reinvent basic things like a
> naming service.

..now compare the size of the MICO naming implementation with KNaming..
;-)

Ciao,
  Simon

P.S.: Can you give me an URL for the "CORBA Component Model", please ?

--
Simon Hausmann       <hausmann@kde.org>
http://www.kde.org/  <tronical@gmx.net>