Re: Need clarification about conv_frame.idl vs CONV_FRAME.idl

[Michèle Garoche <michele garoche easyconnect fr>]

Le 31 juil. 2005 Ã 08:51, Ross Golder a Ãcrit :

> On àà., 2005-07-31 at 05:40 +0200, MichÃle Garoche wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm working on a Mac, 10.4.2 system, HFS+ file system (default file
> > system on a Mac).
> >
> > While checking out ORBit2 module from CVS, I've got a cvs conflict
> > between src/idl/interop/conv_frame.idl and src/idl/interop/
> > CONV_FRAME.idl because HFS+ is case-preserving, but case-insensitive.
> >
> > I've seen that conv_frame.idl is used in the Makefile.am, but could
> > not see any mention of CONV_FRAME.idl.
> >
> > Based on that, I deleted CONV_FRAME.idl in my local repository and
> > replaced it with a manual download of conv_frame.idl to solve the
> > case-insensitivity problem. Is this correct assumption?
>
> That's almost exactly what I would have done. I would have deleted the
> badly-named file and done a 'cvs update' to obtain the latest version
> (rather than a manual download, unless that was what you meant).
Unfortunately this is not possible on my system. If I delete say  
CONV_FRAME.idl and make a cvs update, then again I have a conflict  
with cvs, so that only a manual download may solve the problem  
temporarily (until I do a cvs update again).

The problem is there are two files in the cvs repository: one named  
CONV_FRAME.idl (the newest one) and another one named conv_frame.idl  
(the oldest one), though the contents are not the same and none of  
them are deprecated. They are viewed as distinct files by cvs, but  
not by HFS+ file system. Apparently, the newest one (CONV_FRAME.idl)  
is meant to work with CORBA 3.0, the oldest one is meant to work with  
CORBA 2.3. And the Makefile.am only refers to the old one, so that I  
assumed that it is meant to work with CORBA 2.3, and that in the  
future maybe the package would work with CORBA 3.0. (I have no idea  
if CORBA 2.3 is a very old standard or CORBA 3.0 a very new one).

Your observation makes me wonder if the new file is badly-named,  
which I have not assumed so far.

In both cases, whether CORBA 3.0 or CORBA 2.3 is assumed, the fact  
that the files differ in name only by capitalisation leads (or will  
lead) to a conflict on HFS+ file system.

Maybe I should rephrase my question: which CORBA standard is supposed  
to be used? or which contents of file (referring to conv_frame.idl or  
CONV_FRAME.idl) is supposed to be used? Or to put it briefly, is the  
reference to conv_frame.idl in Makefile.am the right one? Or possibly  
the package is meant to make a choice between one of them (which is  
obviously impossible on an HFS+ file system).

I'm sorry to be dense, but I don't understand why there is a  
CONV_FRAME.idl in the repository for quite a long time (14 months),  
which apparently is not used, though other related CORBA 3.0 idl  
files (as CSIIOP.idl for example) are. There should be a good reason  
for that, could someone enlighten me?

Cheers,
MichÃle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>