[Accessibility] Fwd: X11 libraries requested for future LSB spec

George Kraft 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:
> George:
> 
> 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.

Best regards,

-- 

George (gk4)




More information about the Accessibility mailing list