Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee>
To: pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org
Cc: Michael Robinson <robinson(at)public(dot)bta(dot)net(dot)cn>, maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More PostgreSQL+CORBA
Date: 1998-11-15 14:06:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
Ok, moved to interfaces as suggested

Maybe it would be a good idea to strip CC:s ?

Michael Robinson wrote:
> >       As for 6-9 months...I think this is more in Michael court then
> >anything...I don't see why work can't start on it now, even if its nothing
> >more then Michael submitting patches that have the relevant sections
> >#ifdef's so that they are only enabled for those working on it.  I don't
> >imagine this is going to be a "now it isn't, now it is" sort of
> >might take 6-9 months to implement...
> This is my plan:
>         1. Wrap the current libpq API in CORBA, as a proof of concept

Add 1.A. here: extend current FE<->BE interface to support prepared 
statements, at least to the level of SPI, maybe even _start_ from
SPI CORBA interface. "Extended" because SPI had same deficiences as 
well compared to the "main" FE<->BE protocol.

>         2. Implement a static row-level interface, which maps PostgreSQL
>            types to CORBA types

2.A. Define a standard way for CORBA'fying the postgresql 
user-defined types

>         3. Design a fully dynamic interface, complete with Interface
>            Repository integration with the PostgreSQL type system
>         4. Implement the design
> Number one shouldn't take very long (a few weeks, once I get the whole
> CORBA development thing sorted out).  Two shouldn't take much longer.
> Three and four is anybody's guess, and, as I mentioned earlier, four
> depends on currently unimplemented sections of ORBit.

I think, that we should start with an ORB that has C-interface 
'cause the rest of PostgreSQL is in C. 

The time will probably be better spent on implementing the 
unimplemented sections rather than writing a C to C++ wrapper 
(the part which should in theory be made unneccesary by CORBA !)

So supporting other language IDL mappings
directly in backend seems not to be a very good idea

Of course we should support all C mappings.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Cary B. O'BrienDate: 1998-11-15 14:28:41
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More PostgreSQL+CORBA
Previous:From: Vince VielhaberDate: 1998-11-15 13:54:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Communication

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: TaralDate: 1998-11-15 14:43:05
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] More PostgreSQL+CORBA
Previous:From: TaralDate: 1998-11-15 07:24:52
Subject: ORB API

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group