[omniORB] Compliance with Minimum CORBA

[binod pal]

Hi,
I would like know whether it is possible to comply omniORB code with respect to Minimum CORBA specification.If yes, than how difficult or easy the task is ?.
RegardsBinod Pal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.omniorb-support.com/pipermail/omniorb-list/attachments/20120705/b2731328/attachment.html>

[Duncan Grisby]

Post by binod pal
I would like know whether it is possible to comply omniORB code with
respect to Minimum CORBA specification.
If yes, than how difficult or easy the task is ?.

omniORB doesn't support the Minimum CORBA spec. You could of course take
the code and cut things out until you match Minimum CORBA, but that
would be quite a lot of work.

When I look at the Minimum CORBA spec, the things that make it "minimum"
seem very arbitrary, and the missing bits are not, on the whole, the
things that make a CORBA implementation big. I think a far more valuable
piece of work to do for omniORB would be to allow flexible configuration
of subsets of behaviour that are appropriate for particular
applications. Picking one particular subset and calling that the
"minimum" doesn't seem especially helpful.

Why do you ask?

Cheers,

Duncan.

[Roger Barnett]

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Grisby [mailto:duncan at grisby.org]
Sent: 10 July 2012 18:52
To: binod pal
Cc: omniorb-list at omniorb-support.com
Subject: Re: [omniORB] Compliance with Minimum CORBA

Post by binod pal
I would like know whether it is possible to comply omniORB code with
respect to Minimum CORBA specification.
If yes, than how difficult or easy the task is ?.

omniORB doesn't support the Minimum CORBA spec. You could of course take the
code and cut things out until you match Minimum CORBA, but that would be quite
a lot of work.
When I look at the Minimum CORBA spec, the things that make it "minimum"
seem very arbitrary, and the missing bits are not, on the whole, the things
that make a CORBA implementation big. I think a far more valuable piece of
work to do for omniORB would be to allow flexible configuration of subsets of
behaviour that are appropriate for particular applications. Picking one
particular subset and calling that the "minimum" doesn't seem especially
helpful.
Why do you ask?

As an aside, the original impetus behind the Minimum CORBA spec was to facilitate
use on 'limited resource' embedded systems, e.g. 1MB or less of available memory
(which may give an idea of when the idea was first raised).

IIRC there was an expectation that it would be superseded eventually by various
QoS facilities which at that time were at the hand waving stage; i.e. nodes would
have a way of negotiating a common feature subset as and when necessary.


Roger Barnett