[erlang-questions] Avoiding boilerplate code when using gen_server
Fri Mar 23 19:22:03 CET 2012
> On 22/03/2012, at 12:48 AM, Torben Hoffmann wrote:
>> The question was: why don't you use an IDL (Interface Definition
>> Language) approach instead of writing all that code that has to match
>> up in order to work?
>> I have tried searching for it, but since IDL is so tightly coupled with
>> CORBA I didn't really find anything but the ic application from the
>> Erlang/OTP distribution.\
> There are two very different concepts here.
> (1) "An interface definition language *APPROACH*."
> (2) CORBA IDL.
> CORBA IDL is language independent as long as the language you are
> to be independent of is C++ or a close relative. It is about as bad a
> for Erlang data structures as you would expect it to be. This is not to
> that Erlang cannot handle the data structures passed through a CORBA
> It can. What I am saying is that CORBA doesn't handle Erlang data
I attempted an XPCOM-Erlang bridge to try and marry Erlang with the
Mozilla Framework (XPCOM is similar to MSCOM/CORBA with IDLs etc).
Eventually I realised that keeping to two sides completely separate and
doing application-specific message passing was waaaaaay easier.
- Edmond -
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:53:47 +0300, Richard O'Keefe <>
> CORBA IDL is by no means the only, nor by a very long time the first,
> interface definition language, not even if we are talking about
> for distributed programming. The first time I used remote procedure
> call was
> on a Xerox 1108 running Interlisp...
> There's no reason why some sort of "little language" for specifying
> stuff could not be devised. It might even be something that could be
> in using a parse transform.
> But step 1 is to be very very clear about what is repetitive and what is
> Step 2 is to consider whether it can be done using higher-order
> erlang-questions mailing list
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
More information about the erlang-questions