Hi Jimen, Ashamed to say that I hardly did any of that stuff. I'd had some experience using Java's RMI, and had some friends who'd recommended CORBA as another good technology that'd do the same thing.
My excuse is that I'm a one-man sw engineering team, and didn't have nearly enough time set aside for system design when I was dropped into the project. >From memory: I spent a lot of time looking at web pages that did simple and not overly useful comparisons of each implementation. I remember TAO as being a possible future option because i think it might support real-time, but for right now the interface doesn't havea real-time requirement. For some of the other ones, I kind of remember that I couldn't find much code for interfacing with C. ORBit had some C based sample code that I could follow pretty easily. Also I'd found several references to people porting ORBit to embedded platforms. One of the weaknesses with the RS3 design is that I'm using sockets for interfacing with my embedded devices, CORBA for everything else. Ideally I'd like to use CORBA for everything, though that could very well be unrealistic. Another big advantage, one that I found out after I'd decided to use ORBit, was that it was already installed on my machine. That in itself was worth a bunch. Overall, it was really easy to learn, and saved me a lot of time. -Charles On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jimen Ching wrote: > I'm curious as to how you decided to use ORBit. At my work place, we are > now researching a re-usable architecture for our future projects. We > would like to use some kind of object modeling. I suggested using CORBA, > but another person mentioned that CORBA is too heavyweight. Have you done > any comparison of ORBit with other implementations like omniORB, TAO or > MICO? > > --jc > -- > Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote: > >written in Java. We're using sockets for the more primitive and limited > >interfaces, we're using the ORBit CORBA stuff and the java CORBA stuff > >for the more advanced interfaces.
