> 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.
Yes that effort is not worth it!!!
> 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
> protocols through OMG's IDL would outweigh all other
I completely agree.In addition there are other reasons
1.It is the Corba standard.If I want a "TRUE" Corba
implementation in GNUMach/HURD then the protocol
be IIOP or GIOP compliant.
2.Since the GNUOS is a microkernel based OS ...in
future I might run the various HURD servers on
different m/c.This might sound crazy ...but in future
my system needn't be a single m/c;it can be a
collection of m/c.Can be a cluster etc.This provides
something along the lines of "Gennie".
3.Tomorrow I might like to implement a HURD server in
Lisp(who knows....) and if the implementation in GNUOS
is completely CORBA compliant I can directly jump into
this as you know that you can have any language
implementation in Corba.
4.I also want to stick to a formally world-wide
accepted standard like CORBA and may be do more work
to make it completely Corba compliant than keep
running behind to catch up with anything new and
powerful which comes out which can be done if you are
only Corba compliant.In case such a new thing comes
than again I have to think how I can implement it in
my system which is not IIOP or GIOP compliant.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/