Re: MIG->Corba

[Igor Khavkine]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:14:57AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Mridul" == Mridul Jain <gnuindian@yahoo.com> writes:

[snip]

>     Mridul> protocol is that It is the Corba standard.If I want a
>     Mridul> "TRUE" Corba implementation in GNUMach/HURD then the
>     Mridul> protocol should be IIOP compliant.Also if we have strict
>     Mridul> CORBA implementation we can write the HURD servers in
>     Mridul> other languages too.  There are also a bunch of other
> 
> Agreed, I think this is an advantage.
> 
> Multi-language support might already be possible with MIG(?), but
> since CORBA is more standard, it is likely to be available for more
> languages.
> 

As far as I know MIG only supports C. Modifying MIG to support other
languages would probably not be worth the effort. Even the C code
that it generates isn't that great either.

>     Mridul> reasons which can be discussed in subsequent mails.
>     Mridul> Although I had a bit of success with some Hurd Server Eric
>     Mridul> had said that there might be problems in some cases as
>     Mridul> there are many MIG IDL notions that don't map well onto
>     Mridul> IIOP, e.g., the various flavors of port rights. It would
>     Mridul> take some effort to emulate these features while avoiding
>     Mridul> Mach IPC.
> 
> I am not really familiar with these issues, but I think it would still
> be worth it even if it led to short term breakage and/or
> incompatibilities.

The more obscure featres of MIG support the more obscure features
of Mach IPC. Not only is it not worth to incorporate it into OMG's
IDL, it would be a mistake. HURD shouldn't rely on obscure Mach
features if it wants to be micro-kernel independent. And in any case
the ability to support multiple languages and communication
protocols through OMG's IDL would outweigh all other arguments.

Igor