Re: [boost] Any interest in creating new CORBA IDL to C++ mapping?

Subject: Re: [boost] Any interest in creating new CORBA IDL to C++ mapping?
From: Kevin Heifner (heifnerk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-14 17:58:15

On 7/14/2010 2:22 PM, Johnny Willemsen wrote:
> Please share ideas of how things could look like, for example, what do
> we do for the _var/_ptr/_narrow, how would this look like with a new
> mapping. We can easily use std::string, std::vector, but especially
> _var/_ptr replacement is very important.

Ideas:

- Use shared_ptr for both _var and _ptr.

    std::shared_ptr<FooFactory> factory = // get a Foo factory
    std::shared_ptr<Foo> foo = factory->make_a_foo("my foo");
    foo->do_something();

   Or even the now evil:

    factory->make_a_foo("my foo")->do_something(); // currently leaks

   _narrow will still be needed since you need the server's help.

- IDL string is std::string
- IDL sequence and array are std::vector
   - Java maps them to the same thing

   std::vector<octet> object_id();
   std::shared_ptr<Object> id_to_reference(const std::vector<octet>&);

   C++0x allows std::vector to be returned via std::move without cost.

- No exception specs

- Forget backward compatibility.  Consider it a new language.  It 
doesn't replace the current C++ mapping it is a new language mapping for 
Modern_C++.  So vendors can support either one or both.  Just like 
vendors can now support C++ and Java and Python or just Java, etc.

KevinH

--
Kevin Heifner