Re: [Korbit-cvs] Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit
- From: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>
- To: sabre nondot org (Chris Lattner)
- Cc: alan lxorguk ukuu org uk (Alan Cox), lk tantalophile demon co uk (Jamie Lokier), viro math psu edu (Alexander Viro), mhaque haque net (Mohammad A. Haque), ben kalifornia com (Ben Ford), linux-kernel vger kernel org, orbit-list gnome org, korbit-cvs lists sourceforge net
- Subject: Re: [Korbit-cvs] Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:02:55 +0000 (GMT)
> There is a large perception of CORBA being slow, but for the most part it
> is unjustified. I believe that the act of _designing_ a completely new
> protocol, standardizing it, and making it actually work would be a huge
> process that would basically reinvent CORBA (obviously some of the design
> decisions could be made differently, but all the same issues would have be
> dealt with).
CORBA is slow compared to some of the other solutions. The question I was
trying to ask is whether you should put something smaller and faster into the
kernel space and leave CORBA in userland. It's complex, it has security
implications surely it belongs talking something simple and fast to the kernel.
If you look at microkernels they talk a much simpler faster rpc protocol.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]