[Pipet Devel] Choice of ORB implementations

J.W. Bizzaro bizzaro at geoserve.net
Tue Apr 4 13:23:10 EDT 2000

Brad Chapman wrote:
> 1. Bindings: From what I figure, we should need C and python bindings
> for the ORB we use. ORBit, of course, is all about C, and has python
> bindings under development (but still quite early in development).
> omniORB has really nice python bindings, but does not have C bindings
> as far as I know, which is a serious problem.

What is omniORB written in then?  C++?

> 3. Naming service: It seems like using the naming service might be a
> good bet for maintaining a list of available VSH implmementations (I
> think Jeff has described this before as a kind of domain name service
> that maps vsh implementations to their names (ie. Jeff's computer)).

And the actual nodes contained therein.  We need a directory service of a

> Are there considerations we should be taking into account?

My big concern is licensing.  But I guess both are GNU L/GPL, right?

> Are there other orb implementations we should be considering?

Not that I know of.

> Does anyone see a workaround for the threading and binding problems I
> mention above? How can we reconcile this? Do we need, ugh, two
> ORB implementations?

Definitely not.

Being partial to Gnome, and considering how much Gnome/Gtk is being used
already, I'd prefer ORBit.

                      |           J.W. Bizzaro           |
                      |                                  |
                      | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ |
                      |                                  |
                      |        BIOINFORMATICS.ORG        |
                      |           The Open Lab           |
                      |                                  |
                      |    http://bioinformatics.org/    |

More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list