Slightly OT: ORBit vs. omniORB vs. TAO vs. MICO

[Shlomi Fish <shlomif vipe technion ac il>]

The four Object Repository Brokers mentioned in the title are all free
software implementations of CORBA, that are distributed under a license
that is compatible with what is done in GNOME, and that enables developing
commercial software for them.

Now, here are some items which came to my mind:

1. Is ORBit faster than omniORB or TAO?

2. I know MICO is sluggish, so I understand why we don't use it.

3. Do we still have to use ORBit only because it is written in C while the
other ORBs are written in C++?

4. Are we forbidden from using TAO because it relies on the ACE library
(which is written in C++ and takes a very long time to compile)

5. Can GNOME be conveniently used with any of the other ORBs? The CORBA
specification specifies a standard for communicating over CORBA, so I
guess it should be possible, unless ORBit has some extensions.

6. I know the Berlin Project is dependant on omniORB and, at the moment,
cannot be used with any other ORB. Assuming we wish to port GNOME to
Berlin (which I think we should as soon as Berlin is mature enough).
Should we adapt ORBit so it will be able to handle the Berlin
requirements, or should we switch to omniORB?

Perhaps it would be a better idea to re-write the GNOME project from
scratch using the API that Berlin exposes.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

References and Links:

http://www.berlin-consortium.org/ - The Berlin Project

http://www.uk.research.att.com/omniORB/omniORB.html - omniORB

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html - TAO - The ACE ORB



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        shlomif vipe technion ac il 
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       shlomif techie com

A more experienced programmer does not make less bugs. He just realizes
what went wrong more quickly.