[jcifs] RPC Stub Format Changes

Michael B Allen mba2000 at ioplex.com
Wed Aug 18 01:35:40 GMT 2004

Eric Glass said:
>> But another compiler might create separate files for every class within
>> the
>> interface or upcase the first letter of each class name for example. So
>> to
>> ensure interoperability one would have to also agree on the Java
>> interface
>> as well. I suppose that's what you mean.
> Yes; basically define a set of rules followed to map IDL to stubs.
> For example, OMG has a defined standard for mapping CORBA IDL -> Java:
>     http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?ptc/00-11-03.pdf
> This ensures not only that other third party tools can generate stubs
> that work with Jarapac, but that those stubs can work with our stubs
> (or any other third party's stubs).  Also, client applications know
> what output files to expect from compiling a given IDL (regardless of
> which compiler is used); so any userland apps don't have a dependency
> on a specific compiler.

It sounds like a good idea but I'm not impressed with the mapping. It
seems needlessly complicated. Staic helper methods, reading and writing to
XxxputStreams, requiring holder classes with methods for each member.
Granted, I didn't read it carefully enough to understand what the point of
all the helpers and holders is about but yuk it's alot of code. If someone
really wants that they can write an emit_stub_corba_java.c.


More information about the jcifs mailing list