Re: [orbitcpp-list] More questions...

[Phil D. <ph...@us...>]

Mike Bond writes:
 > On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 07:08:24PM +0100, Phil Dawes wrote:
 > > Yep, because they are 2 seperate refs. (However, if you use _vars,
 > > this is done automatically when the ref goes out of scope)
 > 
 > Ah! So the basic difference between _ptr and _var is that _var handles
 > the refcounting? I've been using _ptr as _var causes a load of warning
 > messages from gcc-2.96.
 > 

The _var handles the calling of CORBA::release(ref) as the ref goes
out of scope. If you are using _ptr then you must do this manually.

The _var warning messages are a gcc annoyance. I think I've beaten
them now, so they won't be in the 0.29 release. (Hurrah!)


 > Also, another question. I've been playing more with orbitcpp and am
 > having a bit of a problem. I tried using oaf with orbitcpp, but
 > liboaf does it's own orb initializion, through oaf_init(), which
 > internally calls CORBA_ORB_init. The problem with this is that
 > CORBA::ORB_init sets ORB_instance, which can't be set outside
 > orbitcpp_orb.cc. This later becomes a problem when you try to
 > call obj->_this(). Also, wouldn't having ORB_instance potentially
 > create threading havoc if someone wanted to have more than one
 > active orb? While at the moment I can't imagine why someone would
 > want to do this, you never know what strange things programmers
 > do.
 > 

I completely agree. I've removed the ORB_instance caching stuff (ORBit
caches a previously initialised ORB anyway).

Cheers,

Phil