[omniORB] Any suggestions for implementing kylix backend?

Duncan Grisby dgrisby@uk.research.att.com
Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:58:07 +0100

On Monday 2 July, Daniel Weber wrote:

> I looked at the Delphi Corba bindings, but they're pretty upfront
> that the bindings are designed to make interoperability with COM as
> easy as possible.  For that reason, they don't have any native stubs
> for even such things as arrays - almost everything gets passed as an
> OleVariant, which seems kind of basically broken to me.  If I
> actually get anything running, maybe I'll make the bindings for
> both, but for a start it seems much more logical to go with a
> mapping that more closely resembles the C++ mapping.

Fair enough. I was assuming that the Visibroker mapping would be

> I'll start looking at the python bindings tonight.  Which implementations do 
> I have to implement?  I presume the ORB and POA are essential, but which of 
> the other ones?   Linking to C isn't an issue with Kylix, but I'm worried 
> about C++ (passing around object references).  I guess I'll know more when I 
> look at the python stuff.

There is no easy list of what you need to bind. It all depends on how
you decide to go about doing the mapping. The things omniORBpy maps
will give you an idea. Python doesn't have a C++ interface, only C, so
it isn't a particular problem that Kylix also only has C.



 -- Duncan Grisby  \  Research Engineer  --
  -- AT&T Laboratories Cambridge          --
   -- http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dpg1 --