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? 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. -- Bjørn