On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Michael Ash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please excuse a foolish question, but.... Why wrap this in Objective-C
> at all? Looks like the resulting ObjC code is essentially the same,
> except uglier, slower, and harder to use. Why not just keep the C and
> use it directly?
This isn't a foolish question. The function declaration that I've shown
you is something of a fiction; it's a definition in an input file to a
code generator (gSOAP). It doesn't actually exist in the resulting C
code. This definition:
>> int ns__add(double a, double b, double *result);
will actually become:
int soap_call_ns__add(struct soap *soap, const char *endpoint,
const char *action, double a, double b,
double result*);
gSOAP knows how to generate C and C++ and with C++ will generate a proxy
for this C function and the SOAP object, so that it looks more like:
class calcProxy
{
public:
int add(double a, double b, double *result)
{
return soap_call_ns__add(soap, endpoint, "", a, b, result);
}
struct soap *soap;
char *endpoint;
}
What I want to do is to create an ObjC proxy similar to the C++ proxy.
Yes, I know I could use ObjC++, but there are reasons I want to use ObjC
instead of ObjC++ including not having to deal with two different object
models in my ObjC programs.
Generating the proxy isn't going to be that hard; I'm just trying to
figure out what the best naming conventions for these generated methods
and classes will be.
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
