[omniORB-dev] ImR idl proposal
kendall bailey
kendall@drakealumni.net
Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:39:11 -0600
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> More comments:
>
> The ImplementationRepositoryAdmin interface is used by meta-clients to
> manipulate the ImR. The ImplementationRepository interface is used by
> servers to interact with the ImR. The ProcessManager interface is used
> by the ImR to interact with a server.
>
> 4b) The ImplementationRepositoryAdmin interface is not used by simple
> servers, so should be split out to allow servers to ignore the
> definitions.
...
Would you like to suggest idl file names, modules names and so on? I
typically don't split modules across idl files, just by habit. More
often I end up with one module per application. If you suggest an
organization, I'll see if I can follow it. I've alread eliminated the
load balancing stuff and subclassed the interfaces to add it in within
another module.
>
> 5) registerProcess() could return a "process object", which can be
> used subsequently for operations like addProgramToProcess(). Seems to
> be cleaner and more CORBA-like than stringifying everything.
I'm not sure what this buys. It certainly seems "more OO", but that
isn't such a strong motivation for me. During my brief use of the Orbix
2000 ImR I didn't see such OO interfaces. The itadmin tool's commands
seemed fairly relational (textual keys to relate things).
>
> 6) There is no corresponding unregisterProcess(). The IDL as-written
> allows "programs" to be added and removed, but not "processes".
Yep. That was overlooked.
Thanks,
Kendall