On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:14:57AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > >>>>> "Mridul" == Mridul Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip] > Mridul> protocol is that It is the Corba standard.If I want a > Mridul> "TRUE" Corba implementation in GNUMach/HURD then the > Mridul> protocol should be IIOP compliant.Also if we have strict > Mridul> CORBA implementation we can write the HURD servers in > Mridul> other languages too. There are also a bunch of other > > Agreed, I think this is an advantage. > > Multi-language support might already be possible with MIG(?), but > since CORBA is more standard, it is likely to be available for more > languages. > As far as I know MIG only supports C. Modifying MIG to support other languages would probably not be worth the effort. Even the C code that it generates isn't that great either. > Mridul> reasons which can be discussed in subsequent mails. > Mridul> Although I had a bit of success with some Hurd Server Eric > Mridul> had said that there might be problems in some cases as > Mridul> there are many MIG IDL notions that don't map well onto > Mridul> IIOP, e.g., the various flavors of port rights. It would > Mridul> take some effort to emulate these features while avoiding > Mridul> Mach IPC. > > I am not really familiar with these issues, but I think it would still > be worth it even if it led to short term breakage and/or > incompatibilities. The more obscure featres of MIG support the more obscure features of Mach IPC. Not only is it not worth to incorporate it into OMG's IDL, it would be a mistake. HURD shouldn't rely on obscure Mach features if it wants to be micro-kernel independent. And in any case the ability to support multiple languages and communication protocols through OMG's IDL would outweigh all other arguments. Igor
