[ruby-talk:20249] Re: CORBA Ruby mapping

I agree that common classes like system exceptions, a union type, an
any type, a fixed-point type and (maybe) enums are needed.  But I
guess I don't see the need for common stub/skeleton interfaces like
Java.  The Java portable stub/skeleton interface is important because
it guarantees the portability of client code.  But I'm not convinced
that Ruby clients should be using stubs/skeletons in the first place. 
Frankly, I would like to see stubs/skeletons completely disappear from
all dynamic languages (this does not include Java [although I need to
check out JDK 1.3's dynamic proxies] but possibly does include C#,
which can use the CLR to create new classes on the fly).  I think if
that makes things a little harder for the implementors, that's fine,
if it makes things easier for clients.

But I'm open to arguments as to why stubs/skeletons might be useful
:-)

Daisuke KANDA <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:<[e-mail]>...
> Hi Tobin, I've read your README file.
> 
>   It is well neat for me to tackle to CORBA Ruby;-).
>   (But I am to freeze my orbit wrapper if your code is pretty work or active developing.)
> 
> 
>   I think it's time for us to discuss about CORBA Ruby mapping.
>   There are more than 10 persons concerned with CORBA-Ruby I've talk or see.
>   We beleave it is important for Ruby to be released over CORBA world.
> 
>   First of all, I attach my vision about the CORBA Ruby Specification.
>   I'll comment on your document in this weekend.
> 
> 
>   But I'm sorry in advance, as you know I am very capricious programmer and I cannot take
>  much time. So please advance discussion or programming when I'm vanished;-p
> # And please keep a subject to include `CORBA' or any other words.
> # I don't read all messages in heavy traffic on this ML.
> 
> 
> ---
> CORBA Ruby Specification
> 
> the CORBA language mapping specification contains some layer of specs.
>   1. IDL to Ruby mapping.
>   2. Ruby object interfaces of pseudo object or ruby-mapping specific object(such as CORBA::Enum)
>   3. portability mapping.
>      The portablity mapping allows any stubs or skeletons following this spec to well work
>     on any CORBA implementation also follows it.
> 
> ---
> CORBA Ruby base library
> 
> We should implement and use common CORBA library like org.omg.corba package on Java.
> Any developer can choise using these library or implementing by himself/herself.
> The mapping should expect an object is not kind of particular class but respond to method.
> 
> I think this library includes:
> 
>   1. interface definition.
>      Interface have two meaning in Java.
>      One is to enable Java multiple inheritance and the other is likely showing spec by code.
>      The Ruby need not interface in former meaning but it is usable in latter meaning.
>      (particularly in case of people use different natural languages as we are ;-) )
> 
>      And its reference code should be well commented.
>      I prefer JavaDoc format for its purpose, I think using John's RubyDoc
>        http://www.ruby-talk.com/14389
> 
> 
>   2. common basic implementations.
> 
>     a. need in mapping
>        Enum class. I suspect that it may be used in IDL enum mapping.
> 
>     b. simple pseudo classes as anyone create same code.
>        ex) SystemException.
> 
>     c. more simple classes than b. 
>        These implementation may be genereted by IDL compiler.
> 
>        ex) IOR, IOP, and so on...
> 
> 
>   3. Ruby extension or utilities.
> 
>      require method may be extended to automatically compile and load IDL.
> 
> 
>   Developer can select which class to use.
>   for example, a ORBit Ruby wrapper may use common Enum class but not use common SystemException.
> 
>   It will be based on my CORBA sub-library included in Rinn.