On Sat, 14 Nov 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 1998 at 01:39:17PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > GNOME started with Mico. Mico, apparently, makes use of C++ templates,
> > > which caused the compiler they were using to generate bloated, wallowing
> > > code.
> >
> > Is that still accurate today?
>
> I think so, yes.
>
> > > GNOME then adopted ORBit, which has two wins: it's in C, and (this is
> > > the biggy) it has provisions to shortcut parameter marshalling,
> >
> > So...implement an OO 'environment' with a non-OO language? :)
> >
> > My experience is that for pretty much every pro, there is a
> > con...what are we losing with ORBit that we'd have with mico? Short
> > and/or long term? mico is reputed to be Corba 2.2 compliant..orbit?
>
> In the short term we lose lots of functions with ORBit. In the long run
> however we win performance.
I was talking with a friend of mine down here, that I was *hoping*
would have posted by now since I really really hate translating what
someone else said, but...
We should be able to create a 'mapping' include file, like we've
done in other places, that maps one 'corba' implementations functions to
our own, so that which implementation (OMNIorb, ORBit, MICO, etc) someone
uses is up to them.
For instance, I already have MICO installed because of
koffice...I'd prefer not to have to install *another* one because I want
to use it for PostgreSQL.
My thought, at this point in time, is that this should be
implemented initially in mico, since ORBit is missing 857+ 'methods'(?)
... but program it generic enough that by a simple #ifdef in a single
include file, it can be extended to any of the other ones as desired...
...basically, don't lock us down to one implementation...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org