From: | "Taral" <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Robinson" <robinson(at)public(dot)bta(dot)net(dot)cn>, <avd(at)gcom(dot)ru>, <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [INTERFACES] ORB API |
Date: | 1998-11-16 15:32:36 |
Message-ID: | 000701be1176$56385ca0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
> You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for
> interfacing to C code? If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary
> support on
> Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once
> in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico.
Have you tried 'idl --no-codegen-c++ --codegen-c'? It doesn't yet support
arrays, sequences, and a few others, but it's there :)
> >By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are
> implementing a
> >2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use
> >ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >required...once the others catch up to mico...
>
> I would recommend you look more closely into the role language
> mappings play
> in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges.
Yes, it looks like eventually the ENTIRE backend will have to be written to
support CORBA directly, especially if we want to be COSS-compliant. See my
IDL postings for details.
Taral
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Taral | 1998-11-16 15:41:42 | RE: [INTERFACES] Updated IDL with considerations for COSS |
Previous Message | Michael Robinson | 1998-11-16 15:31:03 | Re: [INTERFACES] Updated IDL with considerations for COSS |