Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Peter T MountDate: 1998-11-17 06:58:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PREPARE
Previous:From: 송기원Date: 1998-11-17 05:58:43
Subject: How to use text type field....

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group