Duncan Grisby wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:21 -0400, Brent Baccala wrote: > >> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Toralf Lund wrote: >> >> >>> First question: Is this list actually alive??? >>> >> Yes, barely. I'm a late comer, but it looks to me like the free >> software community experimented with CORBA for a few years and then >> (for some good reasons) largely abandoned it in favor of other >> approaches. >> > > I don't think that's quite the case. It is true that the people who > originally built ORBit experimented with CORBA then abandoned it in > favour of other things, but other free CORBA implementations like > omniORB (which I maintain) and TAO are still in wide and active use. > I can confirm that omniORB, TAO (and JacORB) are the best ORBs available. And widely used. Still, CORBA has a number of features not available for SOAP, JSON or other application layer protocols.
The pure C-ORBs such as eORB and ORBit2 are facing a second spring in the context of embedded systems currently. Toralf, the memory management of ORBit2 objects can be a bit tricky. If a large memory footprint is no problem, using TAO might avoid some headaches and speed up development. AFAICS, if you would adapt TAO ORB to integrate into glib::main_loop, TAO might be the better choice. The C++ language binding of CORBA is much easier to use. All you have got to do is to write an ACE::Reactor, similar to the one available for Qt: https://svn.dre.vanderbilt.edu/viewvc/Middleware/trunk/ACE/ace/QtReactor/ Hope that helps, Frank
<<attachment: Frank_Rehberger.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ orbit-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-list
