Re: [HACKERS] CORBA STATUS

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > 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.

Right, which is something that I thought we had pseudo-agreed upon the
last time through, that we woudl most likely require this...hadn't
realized it was for 'Orb-header files', but, IMHO, that's no worse then
putting in HAVE_MICO vs HAVE_ORBIT blocks and having it a configure
option...

See...I am interested, just not interested in having us tied to one
"vendor"...:)

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org