Re: ORBit2 "embedded", e.g. on Zaurus/IPAQ?

[Dan Kegel <dank kegel com>]

To answer Michael Meek's question about whether my glib2
patches were folded in:
just yesterday, it looks like there was indeed some action.
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/long_list.cgi?buglist=77565

OK, maybe gnome doesn't totally ignore the bugzilla bugs
we post :-)

If I were to try using orbit again, I would certainly consider
submitting patches.  As it is, saying "corba" one more time
where I work might be hazardous to my health.  I tried saying
"xml-rpc" the other day and got a much more positive reaction.  Sigh...
- Dan

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hey,
> 	A bug report to bugzilla would be nice - a patch
> would be even more appreciated :-)
> 
> Good Luck,
> Mark.
> 
> On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 09:37, dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> 
>>  We've been hand editing the IDL output to "fix" it.
>>
>>   What a pain.
>>
>>-Dave
>>
>>
>>Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> on 12/06/2002 09:34:34 AM
>>
>>I'm starting to think glib is a monster that needs to be
>>broken up into parts to make it easier to avoid bloat.
>>
>>I agree, IDL compiler output should be portable, but
>>it doesn't seem like a showstopper unless people want
>>to hand-edit its output.
>>- Dan
>>
>>dahaverk@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
>>
>>>How about a configure switch to turn off glib dependancy and use some of
>>>the system provided functions (i.e. malloc) etc. directly.?
>>>
>>>Just a thought because the dependancy on "glib" was a really big "pain"
>>>when I built ORBit2 for my target.
>>>
>>>Another thing that we've discovered is that it would be great if the IDL
>>>compiler build could be turned off.  Part of the problem with the ORBit
>>
>>IDL
>>
>>>that is generated is that it is uP Architecture specific.   The IDL that
>>is
>>>generated should NOT be specific to a platform.   Look at OMNI ORB as an
>>>example.  It can generate IDL on any platform that can be compiled by a
>>>cross compiler or directly on the host.
>>>
>>>-Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Meeks <michael@ximian.com>@gnome.org on 10/02/2002 wrote:>
>>>
>>>Hi Dan,
>>>
>>>On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 17:27, Dan Kegel wrote:
>>>>I tried.  Cross-compiling was a pain; we contributed changes
>>>>to glib2 to help that.
>>>
>>> Did they get folded in in the end ?
>>>
>>>> Memory footprint was significantly
>>>>larger in glib2 than glib1, too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Strange; of course - we use a fairly small sub-set of what glib can do;
>>>so there's possibly lots of room for improvement there. Perhaps it would
>>>be possible to have a configure switch to make a suitably small glib for
>>>you  ...
>>