Jonathan Biggar wrote:
So there appears to be some interest, and even more interest if it leads to developing a new more modern C++ binding for CORBA. But having an implementation of the current binding would be a huge start for that.
I don't quite agree. In particular, I think the phrasing above is quite a bit misleading: I wouldn't characterize an ORB as an 'implementation of a C++ binding'. And I also don't agree that a new ORB implementation is required as a prerequisite for a new C++ binding. The reason I'm pointing this out is that I don't see any value in yet another ORB. Lots of time has been spent on existing ones to get decent performance, etc., and I think it's just naive and foolish to start all over, just to be able to pretend that this one is built with boost. Yet another case of Not-Invented-Here ? Pick a good, free, ORB (the two choices that immediately come to mind are omniORB and TAO), and try to make modifications so it can be used with an alternate C++ binding. I think this would be a much more reasonable plan to move forward. Regards, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...