Received: from ns.gcom.ru (Garant-Siberia-PostOffice.gcom.ru [194.84.180.33]) by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA23543 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:01:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from avd@avd.garsib.ru) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ns.gcom.ru (8.6.10/8.6.10) id LAA00307 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:01:36 +0600 Received: from avd.garsib.ru(194.135.7.80) via SMTP by Garant-Siberia-PostOffice.gcom.ru, id smtpd000305; Mon Nov 16 11:01:27 1998 Received: (from avd@localhost) by avd.garsib.ru (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA00296; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:13:42 +0600 (NS) (envelope-from avd) To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API References: <000401be1069$097314e0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com> From: Aleksey Demakov Date: 16 Nov 1998 11:13:37 +0600 In-Reply-To: "Taral"'s message of Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:24:52 -0600 Message-ID: <87d86onrst.fsf@avd.garsib.ru> Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 "Taral" writes: > It appears that the C/C++ API for ORBs is very well defined. However they > are (especially in the case of pseudo-objects) not simply related. If we are > to support multiple ORBs, we will have to have a C to C++ thunking layer > somewhere... I'd suggest to support only one CORBA implementation in the PostgreSQL itself. It's IIOP that supposed to let different implementations to interoperate. 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. Aleksey -- Aleksey Demakov avd@gcom.ru