Re: Are CORBA interfaces immutable?????

[Bob Smith <bob thestuff net>]

I beleave bonobo is going around the problem by supporting getting the
requested interface from the factory. Then it can leave the old
interface in the factory and create a new, incompatable one.

> 
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 12:24:52PM +0200, Diego Sevilla Ruiz (dsevilla@um.es) wrote:
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Hi, Ron and all:
> > 
> > Ron Jones wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:31:43PM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nontheless, I think we really need to figure out some kind of solution
> > > > for interface versioning. I think it's pretty clear a lot of
> > > > interfaces being written now will have to change in the future.
> > > >
> > > >  - Maciej
> > >
> > > I think that the COM way is actually pretty reasonable. Interfaces do not
> > > change, period (implementations do, of coarse). If you need to change your
> > > interface, then you rename it, perhaps deriving from the previous interface
> > > if you are just adding methods, e.g.
> > >
> > > interface IClassFactory2 : IClassFactory
> > >
> > 
> > Why renaming and not using the IDL versioning? This is the COM way. But IDL
> > defines a version number using #pragma directives within the IDL file, isn't
> > it?
> > 
> > #pragma version 1.1
> > 
> > and so on. IR identifiers are something like
> > 
> > IDL:Package/SubPagkage/Interface:version
> > 
> 
> How does this translate into the C binding? Can you use both interfaces
> in the same program?
> 
> Ron
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-devel-list mailing list
> gnome-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-devel-list