Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Any interest in creating new CORBA IDL to C++ mapping?
From: Johnny Willemsen (jwillemsen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-10 04:37:25

Hash: SHA1


On 08/03/2010 05:05 AM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 07:58 PM, Johnny Willemsen wrote:
>> I am aware of this mapping for DDS, it is a first step in a direction,
>> but very focused on just DDS. I have asked the DDS vendors if they want
>> to go a step further and make a full new IDL to C++ mapping, but they
>> don't want to do that effort.
> I would hope all would somehow agree that commonality over the shared
> part of the IDL is worth aiming for. The problem I guess is that the
> DDS vendors does not have time to wait.
>> In TAO we have recently added some prototype support to use a
>> std::vector for a CORBA sequence. We want to really make a new mapping,
> It is unclear to me if you indicate that you tried the proposed DDS
> solutions and found them too be less than you desire, or that you tried
> them and realized that it is the way too go for CORBA as well?

The DDS mapping goes directly from the DDS PIM to the C++ PSM without
IDL in between. It is really not an IDL to C++ mapping in terms of what
we need for CORBA.

> If part of your rationale is that CORBA need, or may need, a different
> mapping than the new DDS mapping for the shared parts. Could you please
> share this rationale.

DDS doesn't really have an IDL to C++ mapping, but directly a mapping
from the DDS PIM to the C++ PSM. They are only focusing on the few
interfaces DDS has, and these are all local calls, no remote calls like
CORBA. The idea to use std::string and std::vector are things to reuse,
but I think we need a different mapping, from IDL to C++0x


Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE -


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at