Re: [guppi-list] New Guppi Snapshot

[Jon Trowbridge <trow emccta com>]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:11:44AM -0500, linas@linas.org wrote:
> It's been rumoured that Neil J Pilgrim said:
> > 
> > I suppose the absence of an up-to-date and working GTK-- version didn't
> > help with developing guppi in C++ too.
> > 
> > One thing I was wondering was whether it is possible to use some too
> > like doc++ to generate documentation from the code; the use of OO in C
> > doesn't strike me as easy to parse in this way however.
> 
> Out of idle curiosity: why doesn't anybody ever mention using corba
> IDL's to define the programming interfaces? 

A few guesses:

* Corba adds overhead.
* Corba adds complexity.
* Corba would restrict what args types you can use, and how you use them.
* In many cases, it probably doesn't make sense to export your whole API via
  Corba --- just some subset of it.  

Assuming these four things are true, it seems best to build your API
"natively" w/ C and then wrap the relevant parts with Corba bindings,
as necessary.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a Corba expert, although I play one on TV...)

-JT

-- 
GNU/Linux: Free your mind and your OS will follow.