RE: Java/Bonobo and inter-orb communication [was: shipping Vera w ith 2.4]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:

> I don't think we really have a problems with cross-language implementation
> inheritance. Bonobomm works already. Our problems are either
> a) orbitcpp is difficult to complete.
> b) replacing orbitcpp with another ORB (e.g. mico) that has C++ already
> seems difficult.

c) The CORBA/C++ mapping is far worse (relative to C++'s possibilities)
than CORBA/C  :)

but b) is, when you look at it from another perspective, a perfect example
of cross-language implementation inheritance.
BTW, I don't really see how we could use another ORB and still re-use
libbonobo implementations, unless there was a crazy scheme involving the
CORBA-ification of every minute detail of the libbonobo implementation.
(Just imagine what kind of IDL's you'd need if you wanted to subclass a
C++ class with only using CORBA as the communication between the child and
the parent class)

   .--= ULLA! =---------------------.   `We are not here to give users what
   \     \   they want'  -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
    `---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
"God's last name isn't Dammit" - Benjamin Geiger

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]