Hello Tobin.


>>  I've just finished the alpha release of
>> my own ORBit bindings for Ruby.

  First of all, I'm glad to see other people interested in Ruby ORBit.


>> Why two ORBit bindings, you ask?  Well, first, when I began this
>> project, Dai had stopped work on ruby-orbit for over a year, and it
>> was not clear when he was going to resume.

# It is not so rare FOR ME to stop my programs over years(^^;

  My interest goes to create CORBA binding to communicate with any other
CORBA ORB written in any languages. As you see, the current ORBit can talk
with only ORBit, so ruby-orbit is not a my main hobby.

  But why do I revive it?  This reason is there is a person who need
ruby-orbit to support more ORBit functions and I've not known other people
who try to tackle to hack ruby-orbit.


>>   Only the client-side bindings are
>> included in this release, but server-side bindings are being debugged
>> and should be ready in a few weeks.

  If your code is GPL compatible, how about my code?
  It is not completed, but work.


>>   The DII is
>> not supported since it is really unnecessary given the dynamic nature
>> of both Ruby and these bindings.

  I think so. (and same about DSI.)
  

>>  Second, our approaches are
>> quite different.  My bindings do not require any intermediate IDL
>> compilation step.  After all, Ruby is a dynamic language, so why not
>> take advantage of that fact?  With these bindings, if you want to use
>> a top-level module called "Foo" in some IDL file, you can just say
>> "require 'Foo'" at the top of your script, and the IDL file will be
>> located, parsed, and used to create Ruby types corresponding to all
>> IDL definitions in the file.  The IDL file merely needs to be in a

  It is not so difficult because I write pure Ruby IDL compiler which have
dynamically compile and parse IDL code, but it is difficult that what
interface parsing dynamically is the best.


>> I have tried to document the IDL-Ruby mapping I have used as
>> thoroughly as possible in the README.  Unfortunately, there hasn't
>> been enough English-language documentation available for ruby-orbit or
>> rinn to ensure compatibility with Dai's mapping.

  I'm sorry but I'm not good at English...


>>   But I think that as
>> people start to use both our bindings, we'll eventually be able to
>> come to a consensus on a standard IDL-Ruby mapping.

  Me too.
  My CORBA Ruby project include to define CORBA-Ruby standard specification.


  The main problems I think are:

  - fixed point
    It is better we use fixed point library independent with CORBA-Ruby.

  - TypeCode and Any
    I've not read CORBA specification about it.

  - Helper and Holder.
    Are they need?
    I think helper is usable, but holder is not.

  - code set conversion.
    I hear the next Ruby support multilingualization(M17N).
    Altough I don't know about it, I wait it.