This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCJ and CORBA


Roman Kennke wrote:

I try to compile GNU Classpath with GCJ (3.4 and 4.0) and stumble over
the following oddity (actually hundreds of them):

../gnu/java/rmi/RMIMarshalledObjectOutputStream.java:52: Fehler: Class
ïgnu.java.rmi.RMIMarshalledObjectOutputStreamï doesn't define the abstract method ïvoid
org.omg.CORBA.portable.OutputStream.write_wstring(java.lang.String)ï from class
ïorg.omg.CORBA.portable.OutputStreamï. This method must be defined or class
ïgnu.java.rmi.RMIMarshalledObjectOutputStreamï must be declared abstract.
  public class RMIMarshalledObjectOutputStream extends RMIObjectOutputStream

It looks like GCJ is confusing java.io.OutputStream (that is what
gnu.java.rmi.RMIMarshalledObjectOutputStream is derived from) with org.omg.CORBA.portable.OutputStream.
How is that possible? The code looks correct to me, and jikes seems to have no problem with it. Even if I
fully qualify all ObjectOutputStream references it fails. This is very odd.

I have the following proposals how to handle this:

1. don't import CORBA stuff in the GCJ tree until GCJ is fixed for these issues and add a configure option
in GNU Classpath --without-corba for those (like me) who would like to use GCJ for compiling Classpath.

or

2. implement a workaround (oh no, not another one! ;-) ) for GCJs bugs. In this case I would think
temporarily renaming the CORBA ObjectOutputStream (and other affected clash-names) would do. This is of
course very ugly, against the specs and whatnot.


Any other suggestions?



2. is pretty pointless. Its better to not have the classes at all than have ones that don't implement the specs properly. The best approach for this is to identify the bug and get it fixed. This looks pretty similar to PR 18796. Can you confirm that its the same problem, or if its slightly different, make an additional test case?


If this is holding back CORBA integration, then we ought to prioritize this bug.

Bryce


Bryce



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]