Jonathan Franklin wrote:
Yes -- you, me and probably anybody else with more than half a brain using C++ and CORBA.
Which really begs the question as to why it never got better.
Being on the inside of OMG shortly after the first C++ binding was adopted, I can tell you it really was a can of worms. There was initially a much more OO proposal that was almost adopted, but a certain member organization (I'll leave it nameless to protect the guilty) insisted that the C++ binding had to be binary link-compatible with the adopted C binding, so we got the messy one we have now. Never mind that the link-compatibility turned out to be more of a pipe-dream than a reality. 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. The ORB vendors (probably appropriately) never saw a business case to implement and support a second C++ binding. I'm certainly game to participate in re-engineering the binding, but I think it would be a good idea to get what I can contribute in place as a solid boost library first. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org