Hi Brian,
>> I understand that there is no difference on-the-wire between a
>> function-call and message passing. The difference is in peoples
>> perceptions and expectations.
>>
>> When I read CORBA IDL and see:
>>
>> int AFunction (int, int);
>>
>> Because of the connotations provided to me by y
Hi Brian,
Thanks for your reply,
>> I understand that there is no difference on-the-wire between a
>> function-call and message passing. The difference is in peoples
>> perceptions and expectations.
>>
>> When I read CORBA IDL and see:
>>
>> int AFunction (int, int);
>>
>> Because of the connotat
Hi Havoc,
Thanks for the reply. I have also changed the subject of this which I
should have done in the initial e-mail.
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Mark Doffman
> wrote:
>> Both the throws and reply clauses are optional, but if a method does not
>> have a
Hello all,
There were some glaring errors in the example IDL I provided.
> On to the syntax:
>
> My idea for the IDL syntax is to remain close to the 'C' family of
> languages, and is most places to C#.
>
> Elements can be namespaced using:
>
> namespace {
>
> }
>
Should be:
namespac
Hi Mikkel
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Methods are declared by:
>>
>> method methodName {
>>enumName anenum;
>> } reply {
>>structName astruct;
>> } throws (ErrorOne, ErrorTwo);
>>
>
> If you are so keen on clearing out that this is not really a 'method' then
> why is it declared as such? Why
Hello Everyone,
There has been some discussion about an IDL for EggDBus. I have also
recently started working on a D-Bus IDL so would like to get some
feedback on the syntax and how well the IDL would fit when generating
EggDBus bindings.
I have been working on D-Bus AT-SPI and the IDL is born ou
