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.

Is there any reason configure couldn't handle this?

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com flame-mail: /dev/null
# include <std/disclaimers.h> Have you seen http://www.pop4.net?
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================