[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Another quick CORBA q.
From:       Rik Hemsley <rik () rikkus ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       1999-08-04 17:01:57
[Download RAW message or body]


On 04-Aug-99 weis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is impossible. The interface must be described entirely
> in IDL.
> 
> Unfortunately the IDL generates shitty APIs. If someone has time
> we should think about a real language mapping. There might even be
> chances to present it to the OMG to show that the current one
> sucks entirely.

Ouch. I can't believe this. Well, actually I can, but this means bad things for
anyone wanting to write a simple CORBA server who doesn't have enough CORBA
knowledge to mess around.

To do what I'm doing properly, I want to use the POA, and to use both interface
and implementation inheritance.. I think. All this is too much when you want to
define a few simple methods for an interface and only have one type of your own
to pass around.

Looks like I'll either be struggling to do the solution where everything's
specified in the IDL - hard work with no CORBA reference but the MICO docs,
or switch to working over a socket and write my own protocol.

If by language mapping you mean doing things like QString etc instead of string,
that sounds useful, but still doesn't help with user-defined types, does it ?

I'm not too concerned about myself - If I had some money I'd buy a CORBA book,
but this situation makes it difficult for your average KDE programmer to do some
simple CORBA.

I know, I'll write 'KORBA', a KDE/Qt specific memory-light, blindingly fast,
protocol with integrated security. Might take me until tomorrow though. Is that
too late for KDE 2.0 ?

Cheers,
Rik


KDE - Colour Outside The Lines - http://www.kde.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]