[omniORB-dev] ImR idl proposal

[Thomas Lockhart]

> Would you like to suggest idl file names, modules names and so on?  I 
> typically don't split modules across idl files, just by habit.  More 
> often I end up with one module per application.  If you suggest an 
> organization, I'll see if I can follow it.  I've alread eliminated the 
> load balancing stuff and subclassed the interfaces to add it in within 
> another module.

OK, will do. I'm a bit unclear on how we will proceed with development, 
but we should have a consensus on the initial framework before diving 
in. Incremental development is the way to go imho, so having specific 
goals for the first round of implementation will be important. For 
example, any ImR needs to start and stop processes, and to redirect 
queries. Our first round should do just that, with a module framework 
that allows expansion into the other areas of interest such as load 
balancing and object remapping.

> I'm not sure what this buys.  It certainly seems "more OO", but that 
> isn't such a strong motivation for me.  During my brief use of the Orbix 
> 2000 ImR I didn't see such OO interfaces.  The itadmin tool's commands 
> seemed fairly relational (textual keys to relate things).

Well, design style should be based on something. May as well smell like 
OO if all else is equal ;)

                      - Tom