Обсуждение: Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > PostgreSQL's preliminary Corba support will be based on mico, >*mainly* because it is the only one that is 2.2 compliant...the others are >all stuck at 2.0...or incomplete (orbit)... You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for interfacing to C code? If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary support on Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico. >By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are implementing a >2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use >ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >required...once the others catch up to mico... I would recommend you look more closely into the role language mappings play in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges. -Michael Robinson
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Michael Robinson wrote: > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > PostgreSQL's preliminary Corba support will be based on mico, > >*mainly* because it is the only one that is 2.2 compliant...the others are > >all stuck at 2.0...or incomplete (orbit)... > > You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for > interfacing to C code? If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary support on > Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once > in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico. Actually, Taral pop'd into IRC yesterday all excited because he found out that mico does have support for interfacing to C code...*shrug* Taral? Comments? Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
> You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for > interfacing to C code? If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary > support on > Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once > in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico. Have you tried 'idl --no-codegen-c++ --codegen-c'? It doesn't yet support arrays, sequences, and a few others, but it's there :) > >By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are > implementing a > >2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use > >ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >required...once the others catch up to mico... > > I would recommend you look more closely into the role language > mappings play > in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges. Yes, it looks like eventually the ENTIRE backend will have to be written to support CORBA directly, especially if we want to be COSS-compliant. See my IDL postings for details. Taral