Re: ImR idl proposal

Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> More comments:
>
> The ImplementationRepositoryAdmin interface is used by meta-clients to 
> manipulate the ImR. The ImplementationRepository interface is used by 
> servers to interact with the ImR. The ProcessManager interface is used 
> by the ImR to interact with a server.
>
> 4b) The ImplementationRepositoryAdmin interface is not used by simple 
> servers, so should be split out to allow servers to ignore the 
> definitions.

...

Would you like to suggest idl file names, modules names and so on?  I 
typically don't split modules across idl files, just by habit.  More 
often I end up with one module per application.  If you suggest an 
organization, I'll see if I can follow it.  I've alread eliminated the 
load balancing stuff and subclassed the interfaces to add it in within 
another module.

>
> 5) registerProcess() could return a "process object", which can be 
> used subsequently for operations like addProgramToProcess(). Seems to 
> be cleaner and more CORBA-like than stringifying everything.


I'm not sure what this buys.  It certainly seems "more OO", but that 
isn't such a strong motivation for me.  During my brief use of the Orbix 
2000 ImR I didn't see such OO interfaces.  The itadmin tool's commands 
seemed fairly relational (textual keys to relate things).

>
> 6) There is no corresponding unregisterProcess(). The IDL as-written 
> allows "programs" to be added and removed, but not "processes".


Yep.  That was overlooked.


Thanks,
Kendall