Re: IMRs again

[Phil Dawes <philipd parallax co uk>]

Chad Maloney wrote:
> 
> I agree that the ORB/IMR line is not drawn in the spec. I don't
> know why it isn't. Maybe it is to allow leeway in implementing.
> Does the IMR have a record of all activated objects or is that
> the ORB. If the ORB does, the IMR only needs to be able to
> startup objects that the ORB knows is not running. 

Neither the orb or the IMR need to have a record of all objects that are
running. The information required to find a running object is stored in
the reference to the object.
The IMR can have a record of running objects if the object implementor
wants this functionality (this allows implicit object migration - the
client tries to find the object, and then goes indirectly (and
transparently) through the IMR if it can't), but it doesn't need to.

Cheers,

Phil.