ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org> wrote: > So, the question is, which one should be the correct behaviour, according > to the CORBA specs? Assuming I'm reading the specs right: Section 1.23 of the C++ mapping says that pseudo objects may be implemented as normal CORBA objects, or as serverless objects. It also says that serverless objects need not follow the same memory management rules as normal objects. Section 1.25 of the C mapping also says that pseudo objects may be implemented as normal objects, but don't need to be. So the answer is it's up to the ORBit people, and by extension, you. I think it makes the most sense to have all interfaces follow the same memory management rules. If that were the case, then the ORB_init() caller would own the ORB reference, and your code would be correct. > Unfortunately, I just can't find a webpage about CORBA/C++ that would > answer questions like this, so I'm counting on you guys. The OMG CORBA language mappings define things like ownership for those languages that don't do automatic garbage collection. -- Sam "Eddie" Couter | mailto:sam couter dropbear id au Debian Developer | mailto:eddie debian org | jabber:sam teknohaus dyndns org OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
Attachment:
pgpe5YqQhivqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature