Re: [autotools-idl] autotools-idl: Feature extension

[Vladimir P. <gb...@vo...>]

Olaf Mandel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wrote a small feature extension for your autotools-idl package, that I
> think might be of general interest:
>
> At the moment, the Makefile creates from each foo.idl file four files:
>
> foo.cpp
> foo.hpp
> fooServer.cpp
> fooServer.hpp
>
> But these names might not generally be desirable. Either the user just
> has different tastes, or an existing project gets converted to
> autotools-idl, there might be different reasons.
>
> I added four Makefile variables to customize the names. Now the files are:
>
> foo$(IDL_STUB_CLNT).$(IDL:EXT_C)
> foo$(IDL_STUB_CLNT).$(IDL:EXT_H)
> foo$(IDL_STUB_SRV).$(IDL:EXT_C)
> foo$(IDL_STUB_SRV).$(IDL:EXT_H)
>
> The variables have defaults to replicate the previous behavior (see
> idl.am). Also, the new automake-idl works together with configure files
> created with an old autoconf-orb. Just the new autoconf-orb needs a new
> automake-idl to work (the IDLCXXFLAGS is invalid, otherwise).
>
> ATTENTION: This has only tested with the omniorb IDLC. The other IDLCs
> are completely untested.
>
> Additionally, the automake-idl patch contains one extra line in
> idlfix.m4: for omniorb, the fooServer.cpp file included foo.hpp, where
> it should have included fooServer.hpp. This has been changed.
>
> Please let me know what you think and if you will be including the
> patches. Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Olaf Mandel
>   
Hi, Olaf.

Thank you for your interest in autotools-idl :-) Your feedback is the 
first one I get since I started the project almost 4 years ago.

About your feature request - I had this idea in the very beginning but I 
dismissed it as a "nobody would need it" feature. You prove me to be 
wrong so I will definitely try to implement it.
However, I can't promise you that I will base the implementation on your 
patch - I will review it for sure. I can't give you a time estimation as 
well but it will most probably be in the next couple of months. Also, 
have in mind that backward compatibility is my top priority, so the end 
result might not be of maximum convenience.
In the mean time, you may send me an example which uses your 
implementation, if you wish. I do not demand it but it would certainly 
be welcome. Ideally, it should be something like example5 from the 
documentation.

Vlado