[omniORB] From COM to CORBA...

[Stefan Seefeld]

"Len Holgate (Mail List Account)" wrote:
> 
> > imagine a container and an iterator, both CORBA objects, but the iterator
> > accessing the container *servant*. If there wasn't the ability for the
> iterator
> > to increase the container servant ref counter, it would risk to lose the
> container
> > under its feet. Here is an example:
> 
> Exactly as you'd do in COM. So, since reference counting is considered OK to
> use within the server process, is it purely CORBA's lack of support for
> detecting clients that terminate whilst holding references that makes
> everyone say don't do it? I'd have no problem if the books just said "CORBA
> doesnt provide the necessary support for implementing reference counting
> across the client/server boundary" but they always seem to take the attitude
> that you just dont want to do reference counting and that it's you that's
> broken for wanting to ;)

nobody says that people don't want to use ref counting. The point is not
to force people into it. As others have pointed out already, adding ref counting
can be a trivial thing. But why should I be forced to use it if it doesn't fit
my architecture ?
Well, may be we have to agree to disagree here. It appears we are all trained
to think the way we do. At least right now we are turning in circles...

> I agree totally, and I like the flexibility too. What confuses me is why a
> configurable ping wasnt included as an option. Then you can use it if you
> want and not if you dont. Given the way that POAs can be configured I would
> have expected it to be fairly straight forward to provide this functionality
> for those that need it without burdening those that don't.

where does the list of extra features stop ? There are quite a couple of similar
ideas that could have made it into the standard with the same logic.

Stefan