ORBit2 is actually very compliant. My understanding is that it implements the complete CORBA 2.4 spec. It is also very "stable" (relatively few bugs against it - 37 total, only ten new bugs in the past year). It's had as much or more in-depth testing than anything in the Gnome stack.
But in practice I am pretty sure any decent ORB would be able to handle what we use in AT-SPI. While we make good use of a number of CORBA features (like struct, sequences, object sequences, interface query, the 'any' struct, etc.), we don't use exotic stuff. Bill On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 11:33, Olaf Jan Schmidt wrote: > [ Samuel Thibault ] > > > > I'm just wondering: can't any corba implementation (other than ORBit, > > > > omniORB or TAO for instance) be used by Qt instead ? > > We used TAO for KDE1 and abandoned it. Their website says: "Whereas > compliance > with OMG specifications is a design goal of TAO, it is also a continuing > pursuit." This sounds similar to ORBit2 having implemented a > "subset" (according to Michael Meeks) of the OMG spec. > > omniORB does not compile on all platforms we are targeting for KDE > applications and KDE-based assistive technologies (e.g. FreeBSD). > D-Bus support will be part of Qt 4.2 and be easily available on all our > target > platforms. > > > But less than using ORBit (and bare with bonobo dependency), right? That > > might meet everyone's need: keep at-spi in a CORBA protocol, so that > > gnome and Qt accessibility work together, but avoid ORBit dependencies. > > As I said, Trolltech is writing the bridge, and I accept the rule "Those who > do the work decide". > > Besides, the GNOME accessibility team has been arguing against every single > change to AT-SPI that would make interoperability with Qt and KDE easier on > thegrounds that it would not benefit their end users. I simply stopped > listening to this line of argumentation. > > > > It would also be no solution for the libbonobo dependency. > > > > I don't understand this. Doesn't Qt using another CORBA implementation > > would let it be free from bonobo? > > No, bonobo activation would still be used for dealing with the AT-SPI > registry, and the GNOME Accessibility team have made it clear that they do > not plan to change it in the CORBA-based version. This means going directly > for D-Bus is a better approach. > > Also, you would still have ORBit2 etc as runtime dependencies because of the > at-spi registry. This only a problem for the suggestion to push the > bonobo-based AT-SPI into the LSB, because the LSB only accepts maintained > code. > > Olaf > > -- > Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards > accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of > http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/ > _______________________________________________ > Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
