Re: MIG->Corba
Farid Hajji <farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net> writes:
> > We're talking about a microkernel arch, but still I'm
> > not sure if turning hurd into gnome is a good idea.
> [...]
> > Interoperability is a good idea, but if you bloat the
> > whole code with interoperability stuff then it blows up.
> You can add as much interoperability stuff between apps.
> if you wish. But please keep the overhead to a minimum
> when it comes to hurd servers!!
>
> 1. Porting the Hurd to non-Mach kernels (L4 is being one of
> the candidates) would be IMHO easier if the interfaces
> use plain C and are as simple as possible.
>
> The problem here is not the interoperability or adding
> yet another abstraction layer on top of what is already
> there. On the contrary: There is currently too much
> communications overhead already in the ports library.
>
> 2. The faster (in terms of CPU cycles) the IPC mechanisms
> are, the better! L4 and newer nuklei try to reduce the
> memory footprint to an amount that can fit in L1 (or
> at least L2) caches, avoiding in many cases cache line
> flushes.
>
> If you add CORBA stuff, you'll just blow the switching
> code more, greatly reducing the performance benefits that
> L4 and others are trying to obtain.
Look at the URL http://www.l4ka.org/projects/idl4/. It's about using
CORBA on the L4 in an efficient manner. To me it looks like using
CORBA instead of MIG would make it easier to port the Hurd to the L4.
--
Niklas
Reply to: