RE : [openorb-users] openORB not portable ?

[Poupart E. <Erw...@cn...>]

Thank you for your response Jesper,

My question was a little provocative.

Ok for the portability.

I would like to switch to openorb now, but for the moment the =
NameService doesn't seem to work with JDK1.4.

Client hangs when it connects to NameService (see my mail in attach =
file).

Perhaps in the future releases of OpenOrb, it will work or is there a =
configuration option that i miss ?

Regs,


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jesper Pedersen [mailto:je...@wa...]=20
Envoy=E9 : mercredi 7 ao=FBt 2002 16:37
=C0 : Poupart Erwann; 'ope...@li...'
Objet : Re: [openorb-users] openORB not portable ?


Hi.

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 14:21, Poupart Erwann wrote:
> Hello openorb users,
>
> This message because i think it's not logical to have different=20
> interfaces between ORBs !
>
> Especially between JavaORB and openORB !
>
> For example org.omg.CORBA.ORB.create_dyn_any() and
> org.omg.CORBA.ORB.create_dyn_struct() doesn't exist in openORB.
>
> You have to use for example=20
> org.omg.CORBA.DynAnyFactory.create_dyn_any()
> to have the same result !
>

You'll have to use org.omg.CORBA.DynAnyFactory.create_dyn_any() for=20
portability; see CORBA spec 9.2.2

> And i don't know where is create_dyn_struct()  in openORB.
>

This function is not in the spec.

> So, if you have to change the ORB, you have to modify your code !
>
> Not very portable isn't it ?
>

If you use the spec it is ;)

> Regs,
>
> Erwann Poupart.

JavaORB is to my knowledge not maintained anymore, since OpenORB is =
based upon=20
JavaORB so why not switch to OpenORB completely ?

Cheers,
 Jesper