Re: request change at GDA_Report.idl

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On 07 Jan 2001 14:20:55 +0100, Carlos Perelló Marín wrote:
> El 07 Jan 2001 14:13:26 +0100, Rodrigo Moya escribió:
> > 
> > >       typedef sequence<octet> Chunk;
> > >       interface ReportStream {
> > >               Chunk readChunk (in long start, in long size);
> > >               long writeChunk (in Chunk data, in long size);
> > >               long getLength ();
> > >       };
> > > </new>
> > > 
> > > If we don't change this we have at the implementation code a variable
> > > like: GDA_ReportStream_ReportStreamChunk and IMO, this kind of variables
> > > aren't good.
> > > 
> > yes, you're maybe right. But, in fact, what should be changed are all the IDL
> > 
> 
> Rodrigo, excuse me , but it's all ok, when i was reading the IDL i
> thought that ReportStreamChunk was inside the ReportStream interface but
> that is incorrect, so I think that all is correct and we don't need to
> modify the IDLs.
> 
it's not a matter of correct/not correct, but of taste. That is, do we prefer

GDA_Report_Chunk, GDA_Report_Stream, etc, or GDA_Report_ReportChunk,
GDA_Report_ReportStream, etc?

I personally don't care too much now (maybe if some people raise their
hand about it, it should be changed), so, if you feel ok with the way
it's done right now, ok, don't change anything :-)

cheers