Status of C++ code generation

I'm currently looking at some of the issues that my collegaue, Michael Yoder, raised regarding the use of propietary methods in the SDO header files. In particular, I'm looking at the setUserData / getUserData methods in DataObject.h [TUSCANY-1370]. These methods could easily be moved to the

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Andy, the static code generation was an old experiment and is not used.I have been meaning to remove it for some time as it is confusing being there. The get/setUserData was actually put in there at the request of the PHP-SDO team. I'm not sure of the details but I think they use this to

RE: Status of C++ code generation

becoming part of the spec then they could be added back into DataObject.h. Thanks, Andy. -Original Message- From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 July 2007 08:23 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: Status of C++ code generation Andy, the static code generation

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Hi Andy/Pete, Yes, we do use this method in the PHP SDO code - thanks for remembering us :-) I think we need to draw a distinction between SDO C++ for applications and SDO C++ as an embeddable library. The SDO C++ spec covers the former and therefore does not talk about get/setUserData. The

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Graham, so if we move these methods to DataObjectImpl you should still be able to use them by casting your DataObjectPtr to the impl? I think we should do this in SDO HEAD along with the other 2.1 spec changes. There should be only a small amount of rework required when you move the PHP code up

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Hi Pete, sounds good to me. On 17/07/07, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham, so if we move these methods to DataObjectImpl you should still be able to use them by casting your DataObjectPtr to the impl? I think we should do this in SDO HEAD along with the other 2.1 spec changes.

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Andy, I guess you are clear to go ahead and make those changes. Cheers, On 17/07/07, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Pete, sounds good to me. On 17/07/07, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham, so if we move these methods to DataObjectImpl you should still be able to

Re: Status of C++ code generation

Pete, Graham, Thanks for that. I'll make those changes today. Andy. On 7/17/07, Pete Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy, I guess you are clear to go ahead and make those changes. Cheers, On 17/07/07, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Pete, sounds good to me. On 17/07/07,