Re: ORBit2 issues (was Re: ORBit 0.5.15 any problem?)

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Huw,

On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 18:21, Huw Rogers wrote:
> Well it's in the spec, unfortunately, although I agree that my example
> is perverse.

	:-) who writes these specs ! I mean, I can see loads of cunning
bit-packing opportunities for compatibility with old protocols, except
that you could never do that, due to the existing message structure - so
...

> I would propose that sublabels be a void *, and that sublabels[i] be
> the actual discriminator type rather than CORBA_long. I.e. no more
> casting. That might actually be more efficient overall.

	Well - problem is, you still have to do a switch (discrim->type) and a
branched compare / iterate, bigger slower code - and generic union
marshaling was slow enough anyway.

	If we ever have a problem with this, we can fix it in a bin-compat
fashion I think, using the flags on the typecode.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks@gnu.org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot