[omniORB] interpreted clients (Python vs. Corbascript)

[Tres Seaver]

Renzo Tomaselli wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>         while this issue is not strictly OmniORB dependent, nevertheless
> OminORB is behind both cases below.
> I would appreciate if anyone could elaborate on the difference (in
> performance and/or features) between having the following two alternative
> approaches to design interpreted clients:
> 
> - stub generation for an interpreted environment like Python;
> - an interpreted environment like Corbascript with no definite language
> binding but IR (as another way to get signatures) and DII usage instead.
> 
> In both cases some form of late binding must exist since both are
> interpreted, beside language syntax tips & tricks.
> I'm a little confused in comparing them so any comment is much welcome,
> thanks.

First, two caveats:

 * I am interested in omniPy, but haven't worked with it yet;  I do work
   with Fnorb, however.

 * I haven't done more than browse the web pages for CORBAScript.

Fnorb (and I think omniPy) uses DII/DSI within the stubs generated by the IDL
compiler, and therefore has equivalent performance to a "pure" DII/DSI setup; 
the stubs are really "sugar."  I would tend to use the IDL if available, and to
use CORBAScript's IR-driven approach chiefly as a "browser" for unknown
services.

YMMV, of course,

Tres.
-- 
=========================================================
Tres Seaver         tseaver@palladion.com    713-523-6582
Palladion Software  http://www.palladion.com