Re: MIG->Corba
Niklas,
> > > We're talking about a microkernel arch, but still I'm
> > > not sure if turning hurd into gnome is a good idea.
> > 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!!
> 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.
thanks for pointing this out. I've recently used it with some l4
toy servers and the stubs it generates there are quite good
(some tweaking is still required, but that is expected to improve
over time). I have no objections to switch to idl4 as a replacement
for MIG. Just avoid additional _runtime_ overhead, that's all. IDL
compilers are not a problem here (they could even generated better
stubs that MIG).
Regards,
-Farid.
--
Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany | farid.hajji@ob.kamp.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
Murphy's Law fails only when you try to demonstrate it, and thus succeeds.
Reply to: