Yep, perfectly happy with strings in BigBank, just think we should give users the option to use char* if prossible.
Cheers! Andy On 10/5/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 to using string, char* is so 80's ;-) On 05/10/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Borley wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've updated the BigBank sample today to get it working on windows > > based on the new directory and deployment structure. One thing I had > > to do to get it all working was change all the component interfaces > > from using char* strings to std::string, as the changes to the > > binding.ws service and reference stuff that went in for r449433 means > > that using char* strings causes a crash. > > > > Was this the desired effect of the change? Do we want users to only > > use std::string in their component interfaces? Is there a way to > > accomodate both std::string and char*? > > > > Cheers > > > > Andy > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > I guess r449433 introduced that bug, that was not the intent. I didn't > see the bug on Linux but that may have been an oversight. I'm trying to > wrap-up the changes to remove the requirement for the "packages/" and > "configuration/" folders (and it's taking a little longer because my > initial stab at this didn't go quite right). I'll take a look just after > that. > > Independent of this bug, I like how you changed Bigbank to use > std::strings (more convenient than char* to work with) so what do you > guys think about keeping the std::strings in Bigbank even after the bug > is fixed? > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete
