[jacorb-developer] TAO_IMR ImR_Client ImplRepo.idl is different between JacORB and TAO

[Phil Mesnier]

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Timothy Astle <timothy.astle at caris.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Were you using the TAO ImR with your JacORB applications prior to migrating to TAO 2.2a?
> 
> Yes we were.
> 

Ah, glad it worked. We never tested against older TAOs.


>> 
>>> I guess JacORB could have both the 2.0a and 2.2a ImplRepo stubs generated.  Since we're using org.jacorb.tao_imr.ImplementationRepository.Administration directly, we'd just pick the 2.2a ImplRepo stubs "package" (for lack of a better term).  Maybe it's possible to have a class in JacORB in the future that just handles dealing with the TAO ImplRepo interfaces... I have no idea and you'd be the expert there.
>>> 
>>> So I think minimally, having stubs generated for both is probably the safest / easiest approach given what we're seeing.
>>> 
>>> Does that make sense?
>>> 
>>> Tim
>> I don't quite follow your idea about a class that handles dealing with the TAO ImplRepo interfaces. Do you mean something similar to the proxy idea I mentioned yesterday, but simpler. Rather that the dii/dsi model, this would serve as the application interface for the TAO ImR control operations. Is that what you mean? We already have something like that for the POA/server integration that is selected by the use_tao_imr property.
> 
> Yes, that is what I was floating as an idea, but without the time to really think it through.  :)
> 

I'm happy to explore this idea further. 

>> 
>> For the time being, I'd prefer to just fix the current discontinuity in the list operation, and have you fix your code accordingly. The change is small, the compiler will detect all the places the change will be required. Better would be for me to update the whole idl so you have access to some newer operations you may wish to adopt down the road.
> 
> Okay, that works for me.  Would it be possible to have a JacORB 3.8 release soon with that fix?
> 

I'll get the update in the repository soon, but I don't know when 3.8 will be released, since 3.7 was just released the end of October. The good thing about git is that you can reference a particular commit and that's as good as a release.

>> 
>> Adding a second ImplRepo.idl for TAO 2.0a or prior feels like it will take a fair amount of effort. Since you are, AFAIK, the only user of the TAO ImR control operations in the administrative interface, the effort would be wasted as you suggest you are continuing forward with TAO 2.2a. I can't assume the risk to the other known user of JacORB servers + TAO 2.2a ImR unfunded. The effort is too great, and since their objective is met by the current implementation, I can't see them funding a refactor.
>> 
>> Moving forward though, we might want to consider some more changes. For example, I do like the idea of encapsulating the generated stubs in something that is able to deal with future IDL changes. And adhere to principle of only adding new operations, never modifying existing ones. :-)
> 
> haha, exactly.  Mistakes do happen.  As always, it's a pleasure having these discussions with you.  I appreciate your helpfulness.
> 

Thanks!

-Phil

--
Phil Mesnier
Principal Software Engineer and Partner,   http://www.ociweb.com
Object Computing, Inc.                     +01.314.579.0066 x225