AW: [omniORB] Omniidl backends

[Pfeiffer Daniel]

> Karl Waclawek[SMTP:karl@waclawek.net] wrote:
> 
> > I'd also looked at it (version 3.0.4) for generating wrappers for a
> > proprietary mainframe language.  I was quite disheartened at the
> complexity.
> > I wonder if this could't have been done in a simpler fashion.  But I
> didn't
> > spend too much thought on it as yet.
> 
> Just curious: Would it have made your job simpler if OmniORB
> had a C language binding? I was looking at ORBit, which
> seems to be the only ORB with C bindings. However, they
> have not maintained their Win32 port and never integrated
> it into their main source tree, so the current version
> is basically Linux only.
> 
How'd you guess it's a procedural language? :-)  ORBit (besides not making a
good impression) is no solution because we're aiming at increasing the
portion of our application which is already in C++.

The wrappers are not conceptually difficult to do (besides messy issues like
length-bounded rather than NUL-terminated strings).  It's just that the
needed information (like the struct definition of some operation's parameter
can be at a very distant point in the tree.

And we only want to wrap few functions as we need an explicit name
translation, given a 7 character limitation in the mainframe language, which
we are not maintaining in C++.  So we'd like to give a special comment
specifying the translated name.

If anybody has a cool solution, let's hear it! :-)

> > Bear in mind that Delphi is also available for Linux (already in version
> 3).
> > So making a windows-specific solution would be a hack.
> 
> I know. :-(
> 
That's a ":-)" for Linux!

best regards
Daniel