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].
"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.
> 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.
In response to
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Peter T Mount||Date: 1998-11-17 06:58:39|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE|
|Previous:||From: 송기원||Date: 1998-11-17 05:58:43|
|Subject: How to use text type field....|