Fwd: Erlang: orber problem

Niclas Eklund <>
Thu Jul 26 09:46:43 CEST 2001


On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Kjetil Rossavik wrote:
> Thanks again for your replies. I am now doing some "viral marketing" of 
> Erlang here in Cisco. After your successful infiltration of Nortel (through 
> the acquisition of Bluetail), it is time to attack the real enemy (of 
> Ericsson). It certainly has had the desired effect on Nortel... :-)
> 
> >The compile-time depends on your IDL-files. Make sure you use separate
> >files for separate IDL module-definitions.
> 
> As I am interfacing with an existing system, I cannot influence the IDL, 
> I'm afraid.

Perhaps I should rephrase my first comment.
If you have

module foo {
...
};

module bar {
...
};

You can put both in one IDL-file (e.g. AllModules.idl). That is what you
should avoid. My suggestion is that you instead divide the module
definitions into two files (e.g. foo.idl and bar.idl). The result will be
the same and will not affect interoperability.
The drawback is that if you, for example, edit the 'foo'-module you have
to edit the AllModules.idl (used on the Orbix-side) and foo.idl. However,
this will only reduce stubs/skeleton compilation time which do rather
seldom. Hence, this change isn't very important. :-)

> >I do recommend that you upgrade to the latest Orber-version since the
> >IIOP-overhead have been reduced significantly and a new version is on its
> >way which improve the performance even more!
> 
> As I am only prototyping at this stage, I can afford to wait for the 
> Win-build of OTP R8A, unless I run into any problems.

Orber-3.2.7 will be a part of the next open-source release (R7B).
The result of the latest benchmarking tests (one open-source user's and my
own tests) shows very good results!
 

> One issue I have come across is that the IDL I am using has hex numbers 
> (0x10, etc), and also hex numbers bitwise shifted (0x10 << 10). ic:gen() 
> does not seem to support this. Is this non-standard IDL, or is it an 
> unsupported feature in ic:gen? (So far I have circumvented the issue by 
> substituting in the base10 numbers).

It is a part of the OMG standard. I've tested it and got an error-message.
For now I'm afraid you have to stick with your "workaround".

Best Regards

Nick






More information about the erlang-questions mailing list