Thread: Re: [INTERFACES] ORB API

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>    PostgreSQL's preliminary Corba support will be based on mico,
>*mainly* because it is the only one that is 2.2 compliant...the others are
>all stuck at 2.0...or incomplete (orbit)...

You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for
interfacing to C code?  If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary support on
Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once
in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico.

>By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are implementing a
>2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use
>ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>required...once the others catch up to mico...

I would recommend you look more closely into the role language mappings play
in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges.

    -Michael Robinson

On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Michael Robinson wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> >    PostgreSQL's preliminary Corba support will be based on mico,
> >*mainly* because it is the only one that is 2.2 compliant...the others are
> >all stuck at 2.0...or incomplete (orbit)...
>
> You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for
> interfacing to C code?  If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary support on
> Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once
> in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico.

    Actually, Taral pop'd into IRC yesterday all excited because he
found out that mico does have support for interfacing to C code...*shrug*

    Taral?  Comments?

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

> You are aware, aren't you, that Mico has no support whatsoever for
> interfacing to C code?  If PostgreSQL will base it's preliminary
> support on
> Mico, then all the interface development will have to be done twice: once
> in C, and then a C++ wrapper to mediate between PostgreSQL and Mico.

Have you tried 'idl --no-codegen-c++ --codegen-c'? It doesn't yet support
arrays, sequences, and a few others, but it's there :)

> >By starting the development off using mico as a basis, we are
> implementing a
> >2.2 model using a 'generic hook' method such that allowing ppl to use
> >ORBit or OMNIorb or any other implementation will be simply a matter of
>                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >modifying one central include file to map between libraries, as
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >required...once the others catch up to mico...
>
> I would recommend you look more closely into the role language
> mappings play
> in the CORBA architecture, versus the role played by Inter-Orb bridges.

Yes, it looks like eventually the ENTIRE backend will have to be written to
support CORBA directly, especially if we want to be COSS-compliant. See my
IDL postings for details.

Taral