From: "Taral" <taral@cyberjunkie.com>
To: "Michael Robinson" <robinson@public.bta.net.cn>, <avd@gcom.ru>,
	<scrappy@hub.org>
Cc: <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: RE: [INTERFACES] ORB API
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:32:36 -0600
Message-ID: <000701be1176$56385ca0$8a14f7d0@taral.dobiecenter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199811160604.OAA16402@public.bta.net.cn>

> 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