Received: from id.godlike.com (id.godlike.com [206.205.199.129]) by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA22256 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:29:52 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from taral@cyberjunkie.com) Received: from taral ([208.247.20.138]) by id.godlike.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA20004; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:29:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Taral" To: "The Hermit Hacker" Cc: "Michael Meskes" , Subject: RE: [HACKERS] More PostgreSQL+CORBA Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 00:29:47 -0600 Message-ID: <000101be1061$577dffe0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Hear ye! Hear ye! I've just started stressing my brain on the CORBA 2 docs... It turns out that CORBA will be completely compatible with the existing system. postmaster will register a "method server" with the ORB (which is a separate process in mico, at least). A "method server" is one which requires a separate process for every method invocation. Which is basically what we do now with our one-backend-per-connection system. At least until the backend is thread-safe, we're stuck with it. When the backend is thread-safe, we can switch to "unshared server" where we have one per database. :) Taral P.S. When will that corba-specific list be set up? I'm sure that well over half of the list didn't care one bit about what I just said.