Re: [HACKERS] CORBA STATUS

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> 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.
>
> Is there any reason configure couldn't handle this?

As simple as a '--with-corba=mico' configure option ... or, I would think?

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