Hi, On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:19:41PM +0300, Bahadir Balban wrote:
> So why are you in favor of IDL compilers? To me that is also an > abstraction that is a compromise. You could simply use a library with > helper functions, and know what is going on, instead of design a whole > system around compiler-generated communication idioms. I'm not familiar with other IDL compilers; but MiG at least doesn't really do much in a way of abstractions. It rather describes what will be sent in a message almost 1:1. It is a means to say, "create a pair of stubs that will assemble the message in the following way". In as far as it is a compromise (though I'm not sure we are really giving up anything relevant here), it's definitely a good one. It saves the complexity of building messages per hand (and keeping client and server stubs in sync), without really taking away understanding how the messages look. -antrik-
