[omniORB] Compliance with Minimum CORBA

[Roger Barnett]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duncan Grisby [mailto:duncan at grisby.org]
> Sent: 10 July 2012 18:52
> To: binod pal
> Cc: omniorb-list at omniorb-support.com
> Subject: Re: [omniORB] Compliance with Minimum CORBA
> 
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 06:28 +0000, binod pal wrote:
> 
> > I would like know whether it is possible to comply omniORB code with
> > respect to Minimum CORBA specification.
> > If yes, than how difficult or easy the task is ?.
> 
> omniORB doesn't support the Minimum CORBA spec. You could of course take the
> code and cut things out until you match Minimum CORBA, but that would be quite
> a lot of work.
> 
> When I look at the Minimum CORBA spec, the things that make it "minimum"
> seem very arbitrary, and the missing bits are not, on the whole, the things
> that make a CORBA implementation big. I think a far more valuable piece of
> work to do for omniORB would be to allow flexible configuration of subsets of
> behaviour that are appropriate for particular applications. Picking one
> particular subset and calling that the "minimum" doesn't seem especially
> helpful.
> 
> Why do you ask?


As an aside, the original impetus behind the Minimum CORBA spec was to facilitate 
use on 'limited resource' embedded systems, e.g. 1MB or less of available memory 
(which may give an idea of when the idea was first raised). 

IIRC there was an expectation that it would be superseded eventually by various 
QoS facilities which at that time were at the hand waving stage; i.e. nodes would 
have a way of negotiating a common feature subset as and when necessary.


Roger Barnett