[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IDL (was: C++)

From: Jonathan S. Shapiro
Subject: Re: IDL (was: C++)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:37:59 -0700

It isn't MIG's job (or any other IDL compiler's job) to abstract messages. MIG's job is to *describe* a pre-existing abstraction layer. The interface *is* the abstraction layer.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:23 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:19:41PM +0300, Bahadir Balban wrote:

> So why are you in favor of IDL compilers? To me that is also an
> abstraction that is a compromise. You could simply use a library with
> helper functions, and know what is going on, instead of design a whole
> system around compiler-generated communication idioms.

I'm not familiar with other IDL compilers; but MiG at least doesn't
really do much in a way of abstractions. It rather describes what will
be sent in a message almost 1:1. It is a means to say, "create a pair of
stubs that will assemble the message in the following way".

In as far as it is a compromise (though I'm not sure we are really
giving up anything relevant here), it's definitely a good one. It saves
the complexity of building messages per hand (and keeping client and
server stubs in sync), without really taking away understanding how the
messages look.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]