On Wed, 9 Feb 100, Goblin wrote:
> I hope Robert doesn't mind if I stick my oar in here
Pleanty of ocean for other peoples oars :)
> > Do you know the differences between MICO and Orbit? I was interested
> > in a Music application that needed MICO. It took forever to compile.
>
> This is one of the main complaints about MICO. It relies heavily on
> templates and can be a bitch to compile. It was designed as a teaching
> aid rather than for efficiency and performance was a bit of a problem
> too. I have heard that improvements have been made to the performance
> recently. I believe that MICO has been adopted by KDE for desktop
> interprocess comms (ala OLE/ActiveX/COM).
I remeber seeing on the web that KDE were thinking of abandoning their use of
CORBA in KDE 2.x. There were a lot of stability and scalability issues they
were having with MICO, not necessarily CORBA.
> The other two big ORBs in the public domain are OmniORB (this was an
> Olivetti/AT&T product which was opensourced a few years ago) and
> TAO. TAO is probably the most widely used public-domain ORB in
> industrial-strength work. It is supported on lots of platforms and
> was designed to be easily portable (it uses the ACE networking
> abstractions). It has also been tuned for realtime stuff. TAO is
> also a bit nasty to build, but you can download precompiled binaries
> for the common platforms.
TAO makes me a bit nervous. It is the product of a Washington Uni group who
do research into real-time extensions to CORBA. Each release seems to
involve lots of internal changes and produces a similiar sized bug list.
ACE is pretty good for those who want free C++ classes to do things like
threads, collections (maps, bags), strings, etc.
omniORB, however, is very solid and fast (but has poor doco) - highly
recommended.
> There are lots of common CORBA services as well, several of which are
> usually bundled with the ORB itself (naming and events being the most
> common).
This varies with each implementation. The 1000+ pages of CORBA specs define
many services, but most implementations only implement a few services, and
quite often do proprietary extensions to the services.
> CORBA is pretty much mature now (over five years in the market). In
> lots of fields it is really big. We are using it here (NEC) to replace
> the old network management protocols (CMIP and SNMP). We also use it as
> the glue between the processes in our system.
CORBA has been around for about eight years now, but for real-time systems
people like myself I still think it lacks some all important enterprise
features. These issuses are slowly being addressed. Glueing together disparete
languages and systems, however, is very attractive.
Rob.
--
"If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure."
- Vice President Dan Quayle, to the Phoenix Republican
Forum, March 1990
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
