Re: choice of ORB

[Bruce McDonald <bruce triphop dyn ml org>]

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

>
>> I was wondering why mico was chosen as the ORB for GNOME when omniORB2
>> is faster [according to Linas Vespas, at least], also GPL'ed, and has
>> ongoing support from the commercial sector.
>
>A couple of things are missing from omniORB2 which are present on
>MICO: different activation policies in the boa;  and the DII/DSI
>support is lacking in omniORB2.
>
>We might replace MICO soon with a C-based ORB as the MICO generated
>stubs are too big and too slow. 

Ah - the old lament!  Why not add this function to MICO instead of
re-implementing.  I haven't looked at the src much but all that seems to
be required is a additional code generator.  In passing, my experience
with C CORBA code (IBM's SOM product) was that the generated code was just
as slow / big as the C++ code (you, know more generated lines).

Bruce.y