On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Jonathan Biggar <jon@biggar.org> wrote:
Well, you can feel that way, but that rather chops my proposal out entirely.
Doesn't have to be CORBA. Just OO middleware that's "inspired" by CORBA.
I think you're giving CORBA a bad rap.
This is of course my personal opinion, but I think it deserves the rap that it gets. People stopped using it because it was too complicated (too hard to find good CORBA developers) and clunky.
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.
I'd redo even the NamingService spec.
And I think the chances of standardizing a CORBA replacement that is multi-language and multi-platform is pretty much nil.
I've never tried to push anything through a standardization process, and have no idea how difficult this is. Of course, do you really need to standardize an OO middleware product that kicks enough butt to become a de facto standard? My gut feeling is that changing CORBA in any but superficial ways will be impossible. Then you're stuck w/ Jonathan's ORB. Maybe that's not a Bad Thing (TM). Incidentally, have you looked at ICE? Jon