[Pkg-ace-devel] Re: Bug #1854: Reactor Implementations

[Thomas Girard]

Konstantinos Margaritis a écrit :
> On Πεμ 23 Σεπ 2004 20:54, Raphael Bossek wrote:
> 
>>Hi all, some informations on
>>http://deuce.doc.wustl.edu/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1854
>>
>>I'm now able to create libACE_TkReactor, libACE_QtReactor,
>>libACE_FlReactor and libACE_XtReactor libraries. I could achieve
>>this by modifing the MakeProjectCreator files.
> 
> 
> That's very nice. We're in the process of producing up to date ACE+TAO 
> packages for Debian and it would be really cool to be able to have 
> this also. 
> It would be really convenient if you could provide with a patch 
> against the current debian package sources (available in the upload 
> queue right now, not yet part of unstable).

Indeed, that's nice, thank you, Raphael !

>>But have had to realise that TAO uses its own reactor
>>implementations:
>>ACE_wrappers/TAO/tao/{xt_resource.cpp,qt_resource.cpp}
> 
> 
>>This appears to be a problem for me. libTAO is prebuild with
>>reactor usage depending on the configuration at build time ?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
>>So I have to create additional libraries for xt_resource.cpp and
>>qt_resource.cpp too. Let say I will call them libTAO_XtReactor and
>>libTAO_QtReactor as their counterparts libACE_XtReactor and
>>libACE_QtReactor. This would mean, one file per shared library. I
>>know a little bit oversized.
> 
> 
> While personally i don't use any of these reactors, i believe the 
> choice to offer all of them would be quite a valuable addition both 
> upstream and to all the package creators.
> Of course it would require some changes on the part of the developers 
> esp. if they already use one of the reactors, but personally I would 
> be ok with this change, if it would mean smaller libraries and less 
> dependancies...

Agreed. Requiring developpers to additionaly link in a static library if 
they're using a GUI reactor is fine. I suppose we could modify 
ace-config and tao-config to handle this.

Can this be applied to the Dev_Poll_Reactor too ?

Thanks,

Thomas.