Re: oaf gnome-factory problems

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Mathieu Lacage wrote:
> 
> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo@linuxave.net> writes:
> 
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I am trying to compile a program which makes use of GnomeFactory, and
> > which compiled and run successfully with gnorba, but now with OAF I get
> > these errors:
> >
> > ../../lib/gda-server/.libs/libgda-server.so: undefined reference to
> > `POA_GNOME_GenericFactory__fini'
> > ../../lib/gda-server/.libs/libgda-server.so: undefined reference to
> > `_ORBIT_skel_GNOME_GenericFactory_create_object'
> > ../../lib/gda-server/.libs/libgda-server.so: undefined reference to
> > `POA_GNOME_GenericFactory__init'
> > ../../lib/gda-server/.libs/libgda-server.so: undefined reference to
> > `_ORBIT_GNOME_GenericFactory_CannotActivate_marshal'
> > ../../lib/gda-server/.libs/libgda-server.so: undefined reference to
> > `_ORBIT_skel_GNOME_GenericFactory_supports'
> >
> > as I was told by Michael, this is very strange, but, if I run:
> >
> > [rodrigo@txalaparta] nm /usr/lib/liboaf.so.0.0.0 | grep GenericFactory
> > 0000b7e0 T GNOME_GenericFactory_CannotActivate__free
> > 00010560 D GNOME_GenericFactory__classid
> > 0000b3c0 T GNOME_GenericFactory_create_object
> > 0000b1d0 T GNOME_GenericFactory_supports
> > 00010520 D TC_GNOME_GenericFactory_CannotActivate_struct
> > 000104e0 D TC_GNOME_GenericFactory_struct
> > 0000b1a0 T _ORBIT_GNOME_GenericFactory_CannotActivate_demarshal
> >
> > so those functions are not in liboaf nor in the files generated by
> > orbit-idl. where are they?
> 
> I think they are in the skeletons of the factory.
> 
> liboaf does not link against the skeletons of the factory because it does
> not use them. I guess you are trying to implement a factory yourself, no ?
> 
yes

> If so, we can fix this in the upcomming release by making liboaf link
> against oaf-factory-skels.c (add it in liboaf/Makefile.am -> source section)
> 
> If this fixes your problem, I think maciej will be happy to make it work
> for you, (we already discussed this sooner and he agreed with me: we can do
> it :)
> 
well, I don't know if it's the best solution, but I suppose they should
be in liboaf as they are in libgnorba.

thanks