Hello Stefan, Stefan Seefeld wrote: <snip/>
So, I'd rather see a focus on a new C++ binding instead of constantly getting side-tracked into tangential projects that I believe don't provide as much value to this community.
<snip/>
To me this whole project of experimenting with a new C++ binding is more of a sandbox project anyways, that would profit from the experience of the boost community with the C++ language. So, in the end, an actual implementation could very well be contributed to whatever ORB was used to do the experimentation with.
While I understand your concerns, I do not agree. My points are: - Jon is offering an already implemented ORB with an IDL parser: while the parser front-end will probably need a complete rewrite, the rest of the code needs only some refactoring due to the /boostification/. He is not going to implement the whole _huge_ thing from scratch. - I think, like Jeff Garland, that Boost is the right place to discuss about a new C++ mapping: not only because many C++ experts follow this forum, but also because this is a very _active_ place, while the same cannot be said for the majority of CORBA groups, excluding perhaps comp.soft-sys.ace. Having a Boost ORB could be the best way to have the right focus here. - An ORB using the Boost libraries underneath has the advantage, like Jon said, to ease the integration within applications using the same libraries. - I don't think one should always see these initiatives as the effect of a NIH syndrome. Competition is good also for open source projects. Besides, the effort for a new C++ binding could start here but it could receive the support and the advices of e.g. the ACE/TAO and OmniORB communities. Best regards, Stefano