Jonathan Franklin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Biggar <jon@biggar.org> wrote:
As far as re-engineering the C++ binding, it will almost certainly have to be done by someone outside the OMG and presented as a completed work.
I'd be inclined scrap everything but IIOP (even that is debatable), and create something more lightweight, picking and choosing the bits from the CORBA architecture that make sense. Don't bother with the OMG, and make it *not* CORBA (per se). Eventually standardize the wire protocol and language bindings w/ some standards body. And in essence, build something Awesome that people actually *want* to use.
Cutting OMG and any sort of CORBA compliance out of the picture, I'd even be willing to help... A lot. :-)
Well, you can feel that way, but that rather chops my proposal out entirely. I think you're giving CORBA a bad rap. Yes there are klunky parts of the standard (contexts, anyone?), but if you ignore them and redesign the C++ binding, what's left is quite workable. And I think the chances of standardizing a CORBA replacement that is multi-language and multi-platform is pretty much nil. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org