In article <4f79bb47$0$6854$
e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>,
Johnny Willemsen <
jwill...@remedy.nl> wrote:
>>> The answer is possibly. It depends on the demand. The old C++ mapping
>>> is awful, and this new one is clearly much better, but on the other
>>> hand, there is a lot of code out there using the old mapping. My
>>> initial reading of the new mapping suggests that there won't be any
>>> clean migration path for code using the old mapping to the new
>>> mapping, due to clashing namespaces,
>>
>> Now that is horrible news indeed. It absolutely should be possible to
>> mix - obviously only to a certain extent - the two models in the same
>> application.
>
>Yes, it can be done, we do something similar in our TAOX11 product. You
>can use the old and new mapping withing the same application.
How do you deal with the clashing identifiers in the CORBA,
PortableServer, etc. namespaces? Are you using some macro magic to
remap the namespace names?
It's not clear to me that it's compliant with either the old or new
C++ mappings to have the "CORBA" namespace actually be some other name
substituted in by a macro, but maybe it's okay as long as it looks
right to the application code.