Re: [HACKERS] CORBA STATUS

> Wait...when we talked about this months back, I swore that one of the
> conclusions *was* that this was possible...it would involve us doing
> wrapper functions in our code that were defined in an include file based
> on which ORB implementation was used...?
> Basically...
> pg_<corba function> maps to <insert mico corba function here>
> or <insert orbit corba function here>
> or <insert other implementation function here>
> Has this ability changed? *raised eyebrow*

No, this probably is not necessary since the C or C++ mappings for
function calls in Corba are very well defined.

What is not fully specified in the Corba standard is, for example,
which header files (and by what names) will be generated by the IDL
stubber, so each Orb has, or might have, different conventions for
include files. This probably impacts server-side code a bit more than
clients.

There is some interest for some Orbs to try lining up the header file
names, but I don't know how feasible it is in the short term.

We could probably isolate this into Postgres-specific header files,
but there will probably be Orb-specific #ifdef blocks in those
headers.

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California