Ossama Othman writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Alex Hornby wrote:
> > Apart from the obvious difficultly of multi ORB setup etc, to keep
> > clients small it is often desirable to put the IDL client stubs in a
> > library, keeping the server stubs in the server executable.
>
> Why wouldn't you put the skeletons (server-side stubs) in the same
> library as the stubs? The size of the client is not affected by
> placing the skeletons in the same library the stubs are located, since
> the stubs generally don't depend on the skeletons. The linker will
> simply link the stub objects to the client, not the skeletons. OTOH,
> skeletons generally do depend on the stubs so it would be somewhat
> beneficial to have a single library containing both stubs and
> skeletons, IMO.
>
> -Ossama
Ossama,
I agree that its nicer to put both stubs into a the library, but
that's not how our project does it :)
If no-one was ever going to split the client and server stubs there
would be no need to generate them separately...
Incidentally, I think this is what mico does. I ported an old version
of our trading system to mico from Visibroker (before choosing
TAO:). In order to use common makefiles and source I had to create a
script (call it idlcomp) that produced a dummy client header and stub
that just #included the integrated stub and called the integrated
stub the same name as the visibroker server stubs.
Alex.
