[omniORB] omniORB compared to TAO

[Karl Waclawek]

> --- Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org> wrote:
> > omniORB is a good implementation of the features it has. TAO has many
> > more features, is supported on more platforms and compilers, has the
> > ACE infrastructure to help with porting to new platforms, and has a 
> > more active development community. I think that both products have a
> > good long term outlook. I use omniORB for the python mapping and TAO
> > for all 
> > C++ code, at least partly for historical reasons, partly for 
> > portability, and partly for (currently unused) extra features.
> 
> OK, what about MICO? Does anyone have experience with MICO and C++?

MICO was very good for us as intro into CORBA.
We switched to OmniOrb simply because it is multi-threaded and very fast.

Karl