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

Bill Haneman Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Tue Jun 20 08:12:12 PDT 2006


On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:48, George Kraft wrote:
...
> 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.

No problem George, thanks for being patient as well.

To re-cap for those less familiar with how CORBA works, the CORBA spec
(administered by the Object Management Group, OMG) defines how the API
as specified in IDL must be converted to various language bindings.  One
of them is the C language binding.  The CORBA spec in effect defines a
mapping from IDL to C which in turn defines a C ABI for a given IDL
interface.  The CORBA spec also defines mappings for other languages,
for instance C++ and Java, which means that if we define a set of IDL as
normative, application of the OMG/CORBA spec yields multiple ABIs "for
free", one for each language for which OMG has established CORBA binding
rules.

The C binding for CORBA is quite ugly where human coder writers are
concerned, especially those used to more object-oriented languages than
C.  Thus 'cspi' was developed in response to requests for a prettier
interface.  However I think of cspi as rather an expedient wrapper, and
it does have a certain cobbled-together quality as a wrapper around an
existing binding. 

In any case, standardizing on the official OMG C bindings instead would
still allow existing cspi clients to work well, and a cspi client would
be assured of working on an LSB platform because the cspi license (LGPL)
would allow an application to bundle libcspi if necessary.  Also, I
believe (and here I am taking a guess, apologies if I am mistaken) that
PyORBit relies on the OMG C bindings for at-spi - it certainly doesn't
use cspi.  Being a C language ABI, it is as amenable as cspi insofar as
writing LSB conformance tests are concerned, and I think it is closer to
our intention of making the IDL normative.

Best regards,

Bill

> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> 
> George (gk4)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility mailing list
> Accessibility at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility




More information about the Accessibility mailing list