Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 23:28:58 +0200
From: "Martin v. Loewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ This is not really directed to you Martin, but the last line of this
message just provided a convenient point to jump in the discussion. ]
> > No, it isn't. Its license is more liberal than the GPL.
> That's right. But It seems as a completely new environment for me and
> it has less conformance even that ORBit.
I won't argue about the "new environment" part. On the "less
conformance" part, can you give me a feature that is implemented
conformingly in ORBit, but not in ILU?
Not that this has to do anything with the Hurd...
Indeed. I don't really have experience with CORBA, but I don't think
the issues in this thread are relevant in this stage of Hurd
development. Right now the core Hurd protocols are defined by the MiG
.defs files. At one side this defines the C ABI, at the other side
this defines the layout of messages and conventions on how to handle
the data contained in them for use with Mach IPC. None of these can
be easily changes without rewriting most of the Hurd.
I also fail to see why we need an ORB. The Mach kernel handles most
of the things the ORB usually does.
Now MiG has some drawbacks, and therefore, one day, we'll want to
switch to a more sane IDL. That's why there is some blurb in the task
list. It would make sense to choose an IDL that's already widely
used, such as the CORBA IDL. Especially since one day we might want
to run the Hurd on other microkernels besides Mach. We might need
some sort of an ORB too, but this should probably be tightly
integrated with the underlying microkernel.
Feel free to talk about this stuff if you want. Just don't expect any
of the core Hurd developers to take part in it. That might be a good
reason to take it off the bug-hurd mailing list.
Mark
