[coyotos-dev] IDL compatibility: the versioning nightmare

[Charles Landau]

At 10:56 AM -0400 7/10/07, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
>Charlie Landau proposed an alternative similar to yours:
>
>   interface A_0 {
>      void methodOne();
>   };
>
>   interface A_1 {
>      void methodOne();
>      void methodTwo();
>   };

Actually, I merely said that if you *are* dropping methodOne, you 
don't need an explicit versioning mechanism:

   interface A_0 {
      void methodOne();
   };

   interface A_1 {
      void methodTwo();
   };

Note underscore rather than colon.

>In this case the method table is not shared.
>
>I do not see any intrinsic advantage to [this] approach so long as we
>are *adding* methods. The instant a method is *dropped* then we are no
>longer looking at inheritance, and a distinct interface is required.