[Accessibility] Fwd: X11 libraries requested for future LSB spec
gk4 at austin.ibm.com
Tue Jun 20 07:48:30 PDT 2006
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 11:44 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> cspi should not, in my opinion, be the ABI layer that we validate to.
> As I pointed out before, the 'direct' CORBA C bindings, as generated by
> an OMG-conformant IDL compiler, form an ABI in their own right.
> Similarly the IIOP, when applied to a CORBA compliant implementation of
> that IDL, forms a binary protocol against which validation can be
> carried out.
> So the existing CORBA backend already provides us with two separate ways
> in which binary validation could be carried out (i.e. two separate
> binary specs on which validation tests could be built), without
> involving cspi.
I'm a CORBA fledgling. To me, everything looks like a C language ABI
nail for the LSB hammer. :-) I'll go an think about what you said for
a while. I appreciate your patients.
More information about the Accessibility