Here's a case where the .NET Binding beat you to it. ;-) Method: SetProperty C++ n/a .NET public void SetProperty(string name, object value);
Is there a reason to send a Variant::Map for the value rather than any Variant? ----- "Gordon Sim" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Gordon Sim" <[email protected]> > To: "Ted Ross" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Qpid Dev" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:36:38 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: Swig wrapping the messaging API > > On 07/28/2010 04:55 PM, Ted Ross wrote: > > Gordon, > > > > I've been looking at using swig to create script wrappers (Python, > Ruby, > > etc.) for the qpid::messaging API. It turns out that the pattern > used in > > that API wraps very cleanly with one exception. The pattern of > using > > Message::getProperties() to obtain a writable reference to a > > Variant::Map does not translate well into the scripting languages. > Using > > getProperties to read the headers works fine. > > > > Would you object if I added a new method as a helper? > > > > void Message::setProperty(const std::string& key, const > Variant::Map& > > value); > > > > This makes it easy to set message properties via a wrapped binding. > > Seems reasonable to me. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
