Re: request change at GDA_Report.idl

[Carlos Perelló Marín <carlos gnome-db org>]

El 07 Jan 2001 14:48:51 +0100, Rodrigo Moya escribió:
> 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 :-)
> 


You have not understand me, the part i was talking about is mapped as
GDA_ReportStreamChunk, but you are right, the other kind of names you
have write before are more "beautiful" and I prefer them. Then, Can I
modify the IDL to use those names?

> cheers


-- 
Carlos Perelló Marín
mailto:carlos gnome-db org
mailto:carlos hispalinux es
http://www.gnome-db.org
http://www.Hispalinux.es
Valencia - España