pidl facillitates illicit data sharing between idl files

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:13 +1000, tridge at samba.org wrote:
>  > If I add a definition such as this, to my pidl file:
>  > 
>  > 	typedef struct DATA_BLOB {
>  > 		uint8 *data;
>  > 		uint32 length;
>  > 	} DATA_BLOB;
> 
> There are two problems with this:
> 
>  1) DATA_BLOB is a base type in pidl. It is not defined in any idl
>  file, but instead is a built-in type like uint32 and other base
>  types. Trying to re-define it is a bad idea.
> 
>  2) the normal form for structure typedefs in pidl is:
> 
>    typedef struct {
>    	   el1type el1;
>    	   el2type el2;
>    } NAME;
> 
>   Notice that the first line does not contain the structure name.
> 
>  > For my own benefit I just renamed by struct to avoid the collision, but 
>  > I believe it is not intentional that one IDL file should cross-infect 
>  > another in this way - or have I mis-understood?
> 
> you've re-defined a base type. All bets are off after that :-)
Perhaps we should have pidl error out if you attempt to redefine a data
type (whether built-in or user-definied in another file).

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20090929/79d254d1/attachment.pgp>