Extension to Samba IDL.

[Christopher R. Hertel]

Luke,

I'm confused.  Your answers are not making sense to me.

Microsoft has their own IDL called MIDL, right?

Might they not add extensions to this language?

Why should we not create a super-set called SambaIDL that does add extensions
to the MIDL language?

Are their conflicts between MIDL and OpenGroup IDL?

If not, can we not create a super-set of *both* IDL versions?

Aaargh.

Chris -)-----

On Jun 21,  7:32am, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> Subject: Re: Extension to Samba IDL.
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20,  9:18am, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: Extension to Samba IDL.
> > > > Luke:  what's wrong with doing this?
> > >
> > > nothing.
> > >
> > > just not if it's not part of the DCE/RPC spec.
> > >
> > > [for sidlc in DCE/RPC-IDL-mode]
> > >
> > >-- End of excerpt from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
> >
> > Do we need a DCE/RPC-IDL-specific-mode?
>
> yes.
>
> >  I can see Microsoft adding new features to their MIDL.
>
> i doubt it.  ok.  the DCE/RPC IDL definition?  no.  MIDL.EXE the program?
> probably.
>
> > BTW, how much conflict is there between MIDL and other IDLs?  Could sidlc
> > handle a variety of flavors?
>
> i'd like it to.
>
>-- End of excerpt from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton



-- 
Christopher R. Hertel -)-----                   University of Minnesota
crh at nts.umn.edu              Networking and Telecommunications Services