[omniORB] OmniORB on Windows NT 4.0

[Armin Gerritsen]

(I just posted this to the list again, since you mailed it to me personally
and others might have some extra info.)

My opinion is to link staticly. It gives indeed a bigger filesize, but (when
zipped) it ususally shouldn't be such a problem IMHO.

But maybe the people from omniORB have an 'official' opinion or more info.

Regards,

Armin


>Interesting this...
>
>I was just about to post a similar message to the group.  I am building a
>COM object using OmniORB and am having problems with scoping when linking
to
>the dynamic libraries, for example:
>
>CORBA::String_var TempString;
>
>RetVal = pObj->GetProcessIOR("TYPE_STR", FALSE, TempString); // Fine
>
>m_Obj = g_pOrb->string_to_object(TempString); //
>Fine
>
>TempString = g_pOrb->object_to_string(gsRef EORB_ENV_VARN); //
>Crashes when the char *
>pointer in TempString is deleted during the operator=
>
>If I avoid this by not using TempString again then I get a crash when
>TempString goes out of scope, but not if I use the static libraries!
>
>I'd be interested to here an official line on static vs dynamic linkage
with
>COM.  One reason that I prefer dynamic linkage is for updating customers
>with changes to my dll by email with as small a binary as I can.
>
>Regards
>
>David



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Armin Gerritsen [mailto:Armin.Gerritsen@philips.com]
>Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:04 PM
>To: omniorb-list@uk.research.att.com; dignac@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com
>Subject: Re: [omniORB] OmniORB on Windows NT 4.0
>
>
>>I currently am working on Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6.0 with Visual
>Studio
>>6.0, with Service Pack 4.0 for Visual Studio.  When i try to stringify my
>object
>>reference to an ior string to write into a file i get an exception on the
>>object_to_string method call.  I have encapsulated my omniORB
functionality
>>inside a Microsoft COM (Component Object Model) object .  My COM object is
>>defined to be in a Multi-Threaded apartment.  Are there any known problems
>with:
>>
>>1)  OmniORB on my current configuration.
>
>No, I use the same configuration on several machines.
>I would recommend to use the static link though and not the DLL's since
they
>seem to be incompatible in some cases with the binairy DLL's which are
>compiled in VC++ 5.0. (I personally don't see how this could ever be a
>problem, but it seems to be, and since static links makes distribution also
>easier, I always link staticly)
>
>>2)  OmniORB and Microsoft COM.
>
>The multi-thraeded apartment shoudl be right. Should work I supose.
>You are sure you can use the omniORB object? (Trivial maybe, but I had a
>similar problem once and it turned out the problem occured much earlier and
>he whol connection wasn't made.)
>
>Regards,
>
>Armin