Re: ORBit2 ...
- From: <dahaverk rockwellcollins com>
- To: orbit-list gnome org, Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- Cc: <dahaverk rockwellcollins com>
- Subject: Re: ORBit2 ...
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:14:11 -0500
I'll let people at the OMG know that ORBit supports the recommendations in
the C RTF since they made sence to the ORB implementers.
The Issues that people are bringing up really need to be captured in a
document or something that I can send to people at the OMG.
Is someone going to volunteer to collect the information into a document?
I can make sure the correct people at the OMG are made
aware of the information.
> I would recoomend using ORBit2 - not only is the project
> drasticaly re-structured, but hacking is easier, we can't really touch
> ORBit-stable currently, it has a reduced memory footprint, abstracted IO
> layer, is far more generic and powerful etc. etc. :-)
The abstracted IO layer sounds usefull. As for my progress on getting
onto LynxOS. I'm stuck with the "gettext" stuff. I haven't quite figured
how to get gettext to configure for a target nicely. (I'll chalk up some
the trouble to my inexperience in customizing the Autoconf stuff)
I should look at ORBit2 and see if it is more friendly to embedded systems.
I've had some thoughts about gettext... At least for an embedded system, I
to be less dependent on a package that seems to require additional setup
configuration just to read command lines. I'm even considering if I could
out the gettext dependencies.... Any thoughts? Especially since when the
system is deployed, it won't care about having internationalized command
a non-embedded system.
> email@example.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Michael Meeks <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 08/13/2001 12:45:51 PM
Subject: ORBit2 ...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 email@example.com wrote:
> The OMG web site is probably only usably fast if you are in the OMG
> office. ;-)
This needs fixing - it's totaly useless. Surely they can get a
SuperJanet connection or somesuch - it's a charity no ?
> Just so you know.... If the C RTF final report makes sense to you (and
> Others) and ORBit2 can support it...
Well - the changes are so small that I think we support them
already; and most are just impl. details that we happened to choose the
new standard way anyway it seems :-) any->_value = (char **) for strings
> I can let people know at the OMG and it can be moved out of it's
> limbo state. I think it was the Lockheed Martin OMG rep that told the
> OMG they wouldn't implement it's recommendations... Resulting it it's
> current limbo state.
Hmm - I think we need to do no work - that's why I'm happy.
> BTW, my main interest in ORBit is to get it running on embedded
> systems. Maybe, adding some of the CORBA Real-Time changes.
I would recoomend using ORBit2 - not only is the project
drasticaly re-structured, but hacking is easier, we can't really touch
ORBit-stable currently, it has a reduced memory footprint, abstracted IO
layer, is far more generic and powerful etc. etc. :-)
firstname.lastname@example.org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
] [Thread Prev