Re: gep-1
- From: Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>
- To: ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org>
- Cc: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>, Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>, Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>, Gnome Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, bonobo <gnome-components-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gep-1
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:00:01 +0100 (IST)
Hi Gergo,
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, ERDI Gergo wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> > I agree; it's better to have a separate ORBit2-C++ package that works
> > (default build), than to impose complexity on the builder IMHO. I
> > personally, would only really accept C++ bindings in the default build
> > of ORBit2, or outside of it
>
> I still haven't seen any analysis of whether we really have a choice here
> -- is it technically possible to, within ORBit2 proper's API constraints,
> export enough stuff for ORBit2/C++ to be separatable?
Okay, I had presumed that ORBit-cpp (like the scripting
bindings currently) would be using a lot of internals. It seems not -
I've just committed a patch to make it use CORBA_ORB_create_*_tc
instead of CORBA_TypeCode_allocate (an internal function) and now
ORBit-cpp builds without -DORBIT2_INTERNAL_API.
So, if I do the idl-compiler module loading we should be able
to split out ORBit-cpp and it won't have to worry about using unstable
ABIs/APIs. So how does that sound ?
Good Luck,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]