No subject

and not overly useful comparisons of each implementation.  I remember TAO
as being a possible future option because i think it might support
real-time, but for right now the interface doesn't havea real-time
requirement.

For some of the other ones, I kind of remember that I couldn't find much
code for interfacing with C.  ORBit had some C based sample code that I
could follow pretty easily.  Also I'd found several references to people
porting ORBit to embedded platforms.  One of the weaknesses with the RS3
design is that I'm using sockets for interfacing with my embedded devices,
CORBA for everything else.  Ideally I'd like to use CORBA for everything,
though that could very well be unrealistic.

Another big advantage, one that I found out after I'd decided to use
ORBit, was that it was already installed on my machine.  That in itself
was worth a bunch.  Overall, it was really easy to learn, and saved me a
lot of time.

-Charles


On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jimen Ching wrote:
> I'm curious as to how you decided to use ORBit.  At my work place, we are
> now researching a re-usable architecture for our future projects.  We
> would like to use some kind of object modeling.  I suggested using CORBA,
> but another person mentioned that CORBA is too heavyweight.  Have you done
> any comparison of ORBit with other implementations like omniORB, TAO or
> MICO?
> 
> --jc
> -- 
> Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Charles Lockhart wrote:
> >written in Java.  We're using sockets for the more primitive and limited
> >interfaces, we're using the ORBit CORBA stuff and the java CORBA stuff
> >for the more advanced interfaces.