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 AAA06202
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:52:54 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from avd@avd.garsib.ru)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ns.gcom.ru (8.6.10/8.6.10) id LAA28898;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:52:48 +0600
Received: from avd.garsib.ru(194.135.7.80)
	via SMTP by Garant-Siberia-PostOffice.gcom.ru, id smtpd028896;
	Tue Nov 17 11:52:42 1998
Received: (from avd@localhost) by avd.garsib.ru (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA00421;
	Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:04:58 +0600 (NS) (envelope-from avd)
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, orbit-list@cuc.edu
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API
References: <000601be1175$f0ed9360$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>
From: Aleksey Demakov <avd@gcom.ru>
Date: 17 Nov 1998 12:04:56 +0600
In-Reply-To: "Taral"'s message of Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:29:46 -0600
Message-ID: <87iugelura.fsf@avd.garsib.ru>
Lines: 35
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2


Sorry, I don't know whether I'm right crossposting this to two
mailing lists. I hope that ORBit guys could comment better on this
post [this is discussion about choosing ORB for PostgreSQL].

Aleksey

"Taral" <taral@cyberjunkie.com> writes:

> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Aleksey Demakov
avd@gcom.ru