IDL language

[Havoc Pennington]

Hi,

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Schmottlach, Glenn
<glenn.schmottlach at harman.com> wrote:
> I don't particularly like it either but without some mechanism to
> indicate which methods should have sync/async proxy/stub bindings
> generated, each language binding will "invent" their own IDL with
> proprietary extensions (unless, of course, you have another
> recommendation). In many cases you don't want the language binding to
> generate both sync and async methods in order to optimize the amount of
> generated code.

Generally speaking, a code generator will need to support some sort of
command line options, or maybe "IDL merging", or some sort of config
file, if the code generation needs to be tweaked. But you should be
able to change generated code without having to go get some
binding-specific change into an upstream interface provider.

It's totally broken if I add a new binding or new binding feature, and
need to get the IDL in upstream projects patched before I can use it.
Or if everyone generating bindings needs to agree on sync vs. async.

Havoc