Received: from public.bta.net.cn (public.bta.net.cn [202.96.0.97]) by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA00705 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 01:06:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robinson@public.bta.net.cn) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by public.bta.net.cn (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA16402; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:04:43 +0800 (GMT) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:04:43 +0800 (GMT) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <199811160604.OAA16402@public.bta.net.cn> To: avd@gcom.ru, scrappy@hub.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org The Hermit Hacker writes: > PostgreSQL's preliminary Corba support will be based on mico, >*mainly* because it is the only one that is 2.2 compliant...the others are >all stuck at 2.0...or incomplete (orbit)... You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for interfacing to C code? If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary support on Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico. >By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are implementing a >2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use >ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >required...once the others catch up to mico... I would recommend you look more closely into the role language mappings play in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges. -Michael Robinson