Re: Guile, CORBA and GNOME

[Keith Wright <kwright at tiac dot net>]

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> 
KW> > > > I'm not so sure.  GOOPS still seems to be under flaming discussion,
KW> > > > and still changing and undocumented.  
> > > 
> > > I think I have to emphasize that GOOPS is GUILE's standard OO extension.
> > 
> > I second Jost on this.
> > 
> > There is no question.  Next non-bugfix release of Guile will have
> > GOOPS built into the core.
> 
JB> That's right.  :)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be GOOPS, I'm saying that the
CORBA bindings should be straight Scheme so that non-GOOPS Scheme
implementations can use the same bindings.  Idealy the Scheme
bindings would be standardized by the OMG just as they have
done with C, C++, Java, Ada, Cobol...
(You can always add a GOOPS layer later if you love GOOPS)

> Whatever the technical merits of ILU vs. ORBit might be, given GNOME's
> decision, I think it's politically important that Guile work directly
> with ORBit.  If someone's trying to work with Guile and GNOME, they
> shouldn't have to install both systems.

I agree.  But the ILU-Guile bindings have already been defined
(sans GOOPS) and ILU can accept CORBA IDL and turn it into Scheme
stubs.  ORBit should not do the same thing in a gratuitously
different way.  If ILU and ORBit do it the same way and can
"interoperate", and the Scheme community has no objection,
then all OMG needs to do is wield the rubber-stamp of supreme power.

ORBit should generate more-or-less the same Scheme that ILU
would given the same IDL.  I'm not sure how much of this
can be done by code copy-and-paste.  ILU claims to be
free software, so it may be legal, but no doubt the internal
workings are different.

-- 
     -- Keith Wright  <kwright@free-comp-shop.com>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---