[omniORB] status of 4.1

[Urs Muff]

valuetype support is huge.  I would vote for a release just for that.
Otherwise it is really hard to model tree like object by value especially if
structures can be extended/derived.

- URS C. MUFF
SOFTWARE ARCHITECT		- RESEARCH LAB, QUARK EIF
QUARK INC.
UMUFF at QUARK.COM    	- X6360
+1 (303) 894 3360
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail
messages appended or attached to it, may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any
disclosure, copying, printing, distribution, or use of the information
contained or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the
sender by telephone +1 (303) 894-3360 or return e-mail message
umuff at quark.com and delete the original transmission, its attachments, and
any copies without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Duncan Grisby [mailto:duncan at grisby.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:03 AM
To: Urs Muff
Cc: omniorb-list at omniorb-support.com
Subject: Re: [omniORB] status of 4.1 

On Wednesday 14 January, Urs Muff wrote:

> I'm new to this list.  Does anyone have an idea/indicator when 4.1 could
be
> release; ballpark figure would be fine.

That depends on what features are going into 4.1. What are you looking
for?

I am currently working on objects by value support. It's nearly
finished, and should be in beta in a couple of weeks. I haven't yet
decided whether to release a version 4.1 just for that, or whether to
wait until some other things are done, like portable interceptors,
AMI, local interfaces, etc. Does anyone have any opinions?

Cheers,

Duncan.

-- 
 -- Duncan Grisby         --
  -- duncan at grisby.org     --
   -- http://www.grisby.org --