Re: [Orbit-python-list] Uploaded patch

[Jason T. <ta...@li...>]

> Um...  I'm not sure either :-)  Seriously, I probably cut too much by
> mistake.  Sorry about that.

Ahh okay, no problem.

> send an exception, 'cause I couldn't.  Btw, the appropriate exception
> would probably be NO_PERMISSION or NO_SUCH_METHOD (?), but I couldn't
> find out which one either.

Okay, I'll make these changes.

>   Just you release a tarball, I'll build and test the Debian package.
> I can convert it to an RPM, but I have no Red Hat machine to test it,
> so it will be untested.

That's okay, I can test it.  If it's too broken, I can just make a spec
file for ORBit-Python, which is something I've been meaning to do.

> suite I would be rather confident in, but in short and in my opinion,
> the following code leaks memory (same ol' method, run it 100000 times
> and count the bytes):

I'm not sure at this point what you've fixed and what you haven't.  So
after you submit your patch tomorrow, can you send examples on how to
produce all the remaining leaks you've discovered?

>   And the last thing for this mail: I've been asked on
> comp.lang.python if there were any plans to make ORBit-Python
> OMG-compliant (about the mappings).  I quoted the webpage, but I'm not
> really sure...  What is the status of that subproject?

I do address this (somewhat) in my thesis document.  In short, yes I do
wish to make the mappings OMG compliant where it makes sense.  I seem to
recall some of the mappings in the specification not making sense for the
approach I took (dynamic IDL).

Some things will be easy to implement, such as the attribute accessor
pairs.  I read some discussions on why one should favor accessor functions
versus operator overloading, but these arguments just don't apply to
ORBit-Python because of its dynamic approach.  I do discuss this in my
thesis paper, so it may be worth reading (the latter two chapters) for
my rationale.  In the end, I wish to have both methods.  I can imagine
there are pretty good arguments for just using the accessor pairs, but
the current method is just damn cool and just as efficient.

Alas, the mapping specification and much of my line of thinking is a bit
fuzzy to me lately, since I've not been working on this project for some
time.  So I'm hesitant to say much more than that until I can refamiliarize
myself.  I'm also no CORBA expert, and am perfectly prepared to insert my
foot deeply inside my mouth when some CORBA god sparks a revelation about
why things are the way they are. :)

Regards,
Jason.