Re: ObjC, CORBA, IDL, GNUstep

[Helge Hess]

Hi,

notably an ObjC CORBA ORB exists. I think the company which produces
that is called Paragon Software.
IMHO it would be a good approach to try to bind ILU to Objective-C. This
might even solve in-process bridging requirements. Unfortunatly I don't
have the time right now to look into that.

Regarding namespaces: there was a discussion of that in
comp.lang.objective-c recently. Stan Shebs of Apple also took part in
that. You might want to look that up for issues.
IMHO they should be implemented as available in Java.

Regarding forward declaration with protocols: apparently this is
correctly handled by the NeXT/Apple compiler. I agree that this is
extraordinarily annoying since it almost forbids the use of protocols
for anything useful.

Regarding Apple&GNU: Apple will back-integrate it's compiler into the
GNU one. So I would expect that Apple and GNU Objective-C are going to
merge anyway.

best regards
  Helge
-- 
SKYRIX Software AG - http://www.skyrix.com

Igor Khavkine wrote:
> 
> Hi, I read about the CORBA compilance goal, in the roadmap page
> on gnustep.org. Since most of GNU step is written in ObjC, then
> you'd have to provide an IDL to ObjC mapping. For the most part
> this is quite feasible since they follow similar OO approaches.
> However there is extra functionality in OMG's IDL that does not
> map directly to ObjC. For example, foreward declaring interfaces
> and using namespaces (i.e. modules in IDL). Both of these
> problems can be worked around, but these two features are present
> in almost all modern OO languages. I know that ObjC hasen't
> changed in a long time, but why not make a change now
> and introduce these features. Namespaces are not that necessary
> but it would be nice, but not being able to foreward declare
> @protocols (to which IDL interfaces otherwise map directly) is
> quite annoying.
> 
> I know that at the moment there is two major ObjC runtimes, the GNU
> one and the NeXT one (now controlled by Apple). If the two parties
> come to agreement on this the the change could be introduced
> seamlessly. And none of the old code would be broken by this change
> in the slightest.
> 
> Any ideas? I know that a couple of people that have worked on the
> GNU ObjC runtime also contribute to GNUstep.
> 
> Igor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep