Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
>
> > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty writes:
> > > "Erik Meijer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > [...]
> > > I understand that the fact that COM fixes the binary
> > > interface makes it much easier to deal with.
> >
> > I don't understand this - perhaps you could explain.
>
> For Corba you usually have to select an ORB first and you
> need a language mapping - simply fewer variables with COM
> (you pay with loss of portability).
I think you need a language mapping anyway - I don't see how you can use COM
without defining how to map Haskell to it.
As far as I can see, once you have selected an ORB, you mainly need to arrange
argument marshalling and unmarshalling to and from the format desired by the
ORB. Because of IIOP, the choice of ORB is not significant, unless you want to
short-circuit calls for extreme speed ala ORBit. So it appears to me that, in
this respect, COM is like CORBA restricted to only one brand of ORB.
Tim
