Jeff Garland wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Out of curiosity: What's the relationship between an ORB and boost.org, and why would boost.org want to have its own ?
Good question. Some would probably like to have an ORB solution based on Boost because it would be 'lighter weight' than an ACE/TAO solution. The
What makes you think that ? ACE (and TAO) has been worked on for a long time. (The same is true for other ORBs, such as OmniORB.) Do you seriously thinking an ORB will be 'better' just because it's built on boost.org components ?
problem I see is that there's alot of stuff needed to use an ORB (like an IDL compiler) that Boost won't have. So, for a long time you'd wind up with ACE/TAO and Boost.
That, too. I'm just wondering what the intend is, as it seems to me to be completely out-of-scope.
A project that would align more closely with the Boost mission would be a redo of the CORBA binding (it's awful) for C++ using TR1 and other modern C++.
Indeed, that would be good, though judging from history, a process that may be even longer than TR3. :-) Thanks, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...