|
Paul, I'm
truly fine going with only the highly portable set of C language (ISO C89, but
not C99). Since
in general, there aren’t anything which cannot be done with C. Advantages
I see are not only the OO view of C++ (since, we can create similar form of OO
view in C using structs
and function pointers). But
it’s strong typing, name mangling which allow us taking advantage of
polymorphic behaviors, overloading,
in scope variable declaration, exception handling (even though it is quite expensive),
etc., are really
useful features. On
Standard Library functions, we can stick to all c-versions of the libraries
(C89), instead of new C++ libs, and
of cause avoid using STL. As
and when ppl write their services in C++ (or if they already have some good old
services written in C++) and
try using them with axis2c, , I believe they might come across similar memory problems
as of now. Since
again we have to resolve the C and C++ boundary issue at the service level. Thanks Lilantha --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “C
and C++: a Case for Compatibility”
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/compat_short.pdf http://www.research.att.com/~bs/sibling_rivalry.pdf From: Paul Fremantle
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Lilantha _______________ |
- RE: [Axis2] Axis2 architecture implementation in C Lilantha Darshana
- Re: [Axis2] Axis2 architecture implementation in C Samisa Abeysinghe
- Re: [Axis2] Axis2 architecture implementation i... Henrik Nordberg
- Re: [Axis2] Axis2 architecture implementati... Samisa Abeysinghe
