Re: Re: [gnome-db]Changes in c++ binding, if you don't mind


Sorry to reply so late, I was ill for several days.
As to gnome-db (or rather libgda) C++ binding I got interested in it because I started a little project in C++, which utilizes some GNOME tools (ORBit-c++, libgda and gtkmm). I agree that gda c++ binding is not of much use for now, but it also doesn't do anything wrong, just some things doesn't work ;-)
I think that it's possible to improve it gradually. If You think the same, please, commit my changes. If not - throw them away.


>On 02 Apr 2001 10:35:44 +0200, Kuba wrote:
> > I recently started to play a little with gnome-db using its c++ binding. I made some changes and fixes. If you find it useful, please apply it. I don't have access to CVS (firewall).
> > Changes are as follows:
> > 1. I have moved all of the class declarations into gda namespace and removed gda prefix from class names.
> > 2. C header #includes are now in extern "C" section, so programs using C++ binding now links properly.
> > 3. Command::execute () method now returns recordset returned from gda_command_execute () function, so now you can do something useful with it.
> > 
> > The patch made out of the whole bindings/c++ directory on libgda-0.2.3 version:
> > 
> Hi Kuba!
> I was going to apply the patch and just remembered that we talked about
> the C++ bindings being
> broken in its current state. So my question is, should I apply this
> patch which just fixes some "small"
> stuff, or is it better to rewrite the C++ bindings to be a good C++
> implementation?
> cheers
> -- 
> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> <rodrigo ximian com>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]