Your answer to my mail today was:
>> The problem is that applications are interested in accessing configuration
>> information, but storing them in structures makes that information harder
>> to access (except for the application that defines the structure that
>> was stored) and more susceptible to breakage when the application evolves.
>> For explanations and examples, see previous e-mails.
>
>We simply have a different view ;-)So *that* is the problem! ;)
I've been specific about my concerns; could you try to explain why they are
not an issue?
>Hi Colm, > >that is not true. You can explore the contents of each CORBA_any with >the DynAny interface (see CORBA specs). No real application will do this; if they did, it would completely negate the convenience of storing a structure in the first place.
I do not consider that very specific. What is "no real application",
and why would it completely negate the convenience of storing structures?
I have tried to write a constructive answer to your mail, and you replied
by posting the initial problem, which has started the whole discussion.
So you will find the answers in previous mails.
- Dietmar