[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
sort.
> 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.
Cheers.
Jeff
--
+----------------------------------+
| J.W. Bizzaro |
| |
| http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ |
| |
| BIOINFORMATICS.ORG |
| The Open Lab |
| |
| http://bioinformatics.org/ |
+----------------------------------+
More information about the Pipet-Devel
mailing list