Received: from id.godlike.com (id.godlike.com [206.205.199.129])
	by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA14732
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:32:58 -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 KAA01588;
	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:29:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Taral" <taral@cyberjunkie.com>
To: "Aleksey Demakov" <avd@gcom.ru>, <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] ORB API
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:29:46 -0600
Message-ID: <000601be1175$f0ed9360$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
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <87d86onrst.fsf@avd.garsib.ru>

> 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