Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:08:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:08:37 -0500 Received: from ip252.uni-com.net ([205.198.252.252]:65286 "HELO www.nondot.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:08:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:38:40 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Lattner To: Larry McVoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, orbit-list@gnome.org, korbit-cvs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Korbit-cvs] Re: ANNOUNCE: Linux Kernel ORB: kORBit In-Reply-To: <20001214021044.C6380@work.bitmover.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > There is a large perception of CORBA being slow, but for the most part it > > > is unjustified. > > Really? I have that same perception but I can't claim that I've measured it. > On the other hand, I have measured the overhead of straight UDP, TCP, and > Sun RPC ping/pong tests and you can find the code for that in any version > of lmbench. It should be a 5 minute task for someone who groks corba to > do the same thing using the same framework. If someone wants to do it, > I'll guide them through the lmbench stuff. It's pretty trivial, start Urm... thanks for the offer... but you misunderstand me if you think that I'm claiming that kORBit is the ideal/fast implementation that everyone has been looking for. There is still much to be done. :) -Chris http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/ http://www.nondot.org/MagicStats/ http://korbit.sourceforge.net/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/