[omniORB] IDL to Python language mapping update?

[Bruce Visscher]

> I'm not a member of the OMG, and I have no idea what it takes to get a
> new spec approved, but I reason this group has the best chance of
> making that happen (if it indeed can happen). I'd be willing to help
> write, review, and work the document through the process. I'm by no
> means an expert on all aspects of CORBA and Python, but I have solid
> experience in both.

Unfortunately, my impression is that it takes quite a lot.to get a new
spec approved.  Case in point is the C++ mapping.  Unfortunately, the
ISO C++ language standard was still pending when the CORBA C++ mapping
standard was designed.  The result in my opinion is that it never
really was a good fit with the way the language typically would be
used.  I believe there was at least one attempt at a new language
mapping that was not approved.  The excuse given that I recall was
that there was too much legacy code to change it.  (Does not make
sense to me at all...)  In any case, the current situation is that we
are still using the old pre-ISO standard CORBA C++ language mapping
standard.  When you consider that the C++ language was standardized in
1998 this is a pretty bad state of affairs.   (Again, my opinion.  It
is my understanding that there currently is a proposal for a new C++
mapping now.  I am not a member either so I don't know the details.)

Perhaps a Python language mapping would go better.  You might want to
ask in comp.object.corba newsgroup as well.