RE: Generic tasks for idl2java, javac ... (was Re: A question abo ut "available" ...)

["Treanor,Ciaran" <ci...@xelector.com>]

Tom Cook [mailto:tcook@ardec.com.au] wrote:
> This is a significant improvement on the method I just proposed...
> [snip]
> > I see this approach like abstract idlToJava task which has 
> to be extended by
> > specific implementation. It has basic common options and parameters:
> > - source idl file
> > - destination directory
> > - turn on/off the generation POA stubs and skeletons
> > - define the symbol
> > - include path
> > - turn on/off warning
> > - verbose mode switch
> > - version
> > and, of course, virtual launching facility:
> > - execute

We might also need a "package" option to specify with Java package
to place the stubs and skeletons in.

Ciaran
-- 
Ciaran Treanor +353-1-632-6143                   ciaran@xelector.com
Xelector
"If you're playing your records backwards, you ARE Satan"-Bill Hicks

RE: Generic tasks for idl2java, javac ... (was Re: A question about "available" ...)

[Vitaly Stulsky <vi...@yahoo.com>]

> We might also need a "package" option to specify with Java package
> to place the stubs and skeletons in.

I've thought about it. But I didn't find correspond property in the idlj from
JDK 1.3
and decided to exclude this property from initial proposal.
IDL compiler from my ORB support such option, but in my project I decided
to avoid it usage. I prefer to specify packages directly in the IDL. Of course,
exist cases when better to specify the package where you want to store stubs
and skeletons during compilation.

I think to decide we need to explore how much idl compilers support this option.
If count of idl compilers, which support specifying package during compilation
more
than 50% of overall wide-spread compilers we have to include this option into
the standard option set.

Vitaly


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com