Re: [Sblim-devel] NPI compilation issues

[Jim M. <Jam...@Su...>]

Hi Viktor,
  I actually have the implementation working with 0.9.2, I will get 
0.9.3 and try it with that - I don't anticipate any issues here.  I will 
look at combining the NPITool.cpp file so that there is only one. 
 However; there has to be 2 NativeProvider.java files because the 
interfaces that Sun uses are more aligned with JSR 48 then what the SNIA 
interface currently is (I think).

I'll let you know how I make out with it.

Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:

>Hi Jim,
>
>I'm really excited to hear that you are working on a WBEM services port. I
>think that all your concerns are valid, and I have prepared a new NPI
>release 0.9.3 which should address your issues. Indeed, the code shouldn't
>cause warnings, regardless of the compiler. The SampleProvider hasn't been
>touched for a while (internally we use the SBLIM providers as "samples"),
>hence the "incompileability". I've fixed that and also have added a
>makefile and a MOF for the sample. I'd suggest you base your work on the
>new release.
>
>Regarding your port I would suggest that we try not to have two seperate
>NPITool.cpp implementations, but rather try to handle the difference via
>the method/class tables initialization. Ultimately the SNIA CIMOM should
>have the same method signatures (except for the package names) and I really
>would love to see that being handled by one single implementation. Let me
>know what you think about it.
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards
>   Viktor Mihajlovski
>
>Linux Technology Center
>
>   IBM Laboratory Böblingen, Germany
>   Phone +49-7031-16-2560
>   E-Mail mih...@de...
>
>
>                                                                                                                        
>                    Jim Marshall                                                                                        
>                    <Jam...@su...       To:     sbl...@ww...                     
>                    >                             cc:                                                                   
>                    Sent by:                      Subject:     [Sblim-devel] NPI compilation issues                     
>                    sblim-devel-admin@www-1                                                                             
>                    26.ibm.com                                                                                          
>                                                                                                                        
>                                                                                                                        
>                    11/29/01 08:41 PM                                                                                   
>                                                                                                                        
>                                                                                                                        
>
>
>
>
>Hello,
>  I am looking at adding a port to the SBLIM NPI so that it will work
>with the Sun WBEM Services (and our open source one), but I've hit a
>couple of problems which I would like some information on.  I am using
>npi 0.9.2 and using the Sun 'cc' compiler (version 5.3), I've hit two
>problems in npi.h, in there there is the following enum
>
>typedef enum {
>  CIM_INTEGER,
>  CIM_STRING,
>  CIM_REF,
>} CIMType;
>
>Notice the ',' after "CIM_REF" - this causes a compile warning with the
>Sun cc compiler ('Expected identifier instead of "}"')
>
>Additionally the METHOD_STRUCT causes lots of "String literal converted
>to char* in initialization" because the 'methodName' and 'Signature'
>members are declared as 'char*' and not 'const char*'.
>
>Lastly in the sample C provider the 'createInstance' function calls
>"CIMObjectPathNew" passing the CIMInstance as the second parameter - the
>Sun cc compiler complains because that function expects a char* as the
>second parameter.  Shouldn't this be calling
>'CIMObjectPathFromCIMInstance'?
>
>The main question I have, is if I make the above changes, would this
>adversely affect the other implementations in any way?  I can work
>around these, but figured I'd ask if it would be ok to modify them.
>
>Thanks
>-Jim
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sblim-devel mailing list
>Sbl...@ww...
>http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/sblim-devel
>
>
>