[omniORB] interpreted clients (Python vs. Corbascript)

[Tres Seaver]

Renzo Tomaselli wrote:
> 
> Tres,
>         thank you for your contribution. I have no experience with Python
> nor with Corbascript but I feel the strong need for an interpreted
> environment as a kind of glue for driving my own CORBA implementations,
> which are always C++.

Actually, that is how I found Python in the first place:  I was looking for a
way to script my C++ CORBA servers (for test harnesses, primarily).  Python
turns out to be a wonderful way to prototype servers too, especially while the
IDL is in flux.  In fact, I now do CORBA under the paradigm, "start with Python,
then recode hotspots in C/C++ for speed" (Python is marginally easier to extend
with C than with C++).

> The role I see here for scripting is similar to that one of a kind of
> "macro" language. User friendness is much more important than performance,
> since the hard work is done by the backend implementations.
> A key role would be played by an IDE for that, but I think it's too soon for
> this.
> And I still miss the meaning of an official OMG "CORBA script language", I
> will investigate further.

CORBAScript has apparently gotten OMG to adopt their worldview as the "blessed"
way to script CORBA.  That may be a plus if you are choosing between CORBAScript
and one of the Python implementations, but the downside is that you lose all the
"batteries included" stuff which comes with Python (database access, object
persistence mechanisms, networking protocols, COM interoperability, file
handling, etc.)

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