From: | Aleksey Demakov <avd(at)gcom(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, orbit-list(at)cuc(dot)edu |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API |
Date: | 1998-11-17 06:04:56 |
Message-ID: | 87iugelura.fsf@avd.garsib.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Sorry, I don't know whether I'm right crossposting this to two
mailing lists. I hope that ORBit guys could comment better on this
post [this is discussion about choosing ORB for PostgreSQL].
Aleksey
"Taral" <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com> writes:
> > I believe that ORBit is the best candidate, though it's not yet
> > complete and its ability to interoperate with other implementations
> > is to be proven. But unlike others it doesn't require egcs or
> > OS thread support (omniORB). It is intended for real work, not
> > for education (mico). It is in active development wich we can
> > join to.
>
> But does it fully support the basic CORBA 2.2 API *right now*? The point of
> using mico was that we can easily switch ORBs later on since the 2.2 API is
> so specific.
>
> Example:
>
> omniORB does not use the 2.2 perform_work()/run() functions, but instead has
> an extension to the impl_is_ready() function. Although their implementation
> is valid under 2.0, it is *not* valid under 2.2.
>
> Taral
>
>
>
>
--
Aleksey Demakov
avd(at)gcom(dot)ru
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter T Mount | 1998-11-17 06:58:39 | Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE |
Previous Message | 송기원 | 1998-11-17 05:58:43 | How to use text type field.... |