Re: [g-a-devel] [Kde-accessibility] [Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] D-Bus AT-SPI - The way forward

[Peter Korn <Peter Korn Sun COM>]

Hi Rob,

Moving Java to a new IPC mechanism for accessibility will be work.  We 
certainly have plenty of sample code to look at, and rolled our own 
shared-memory-based IPC for Windows from Java, so it certainly can be 
done (and the Windows side seems pretty fast, based on unscientific 
performance analysis...).


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Brian Cameron wrote:
>   
> > Rob/George:
> >
> > The main reason for running with orbitrc configured with IPv4 turned on
> > is so that Java applications are accessible.  Since Java supports CORBA,
> > but does not support CORBA over a UNIX socket, it is necessary to
> > turn on IPv4 for Java programs to be accessible.  The LocalOnly
> > flag is then desirable to ensure that nobody from other machines
> > can use TCP/IP to connect to the ORBit server.
> >
> > I'm not sure how Java a11y will work with D-Bus.  Is this in the
> > plan at all?
> >     
>
> Supporting com.sun.java.accessibility shouldn't be hard, but we really
> need with some input from people who understand how accessibility is
> exposed by AWT/SWT/Swing..
>
>   
> > I'm a bit confused by the slowdown, though.  I thought that programs
> > that use UNIX sockets to connect to the ORBit2 server will continue to
> > do so even when TCP/IP is enabled.  My understanding was that enabling
> > TCP/IP with ORBit2 just made it possible for programs that want to use
> > TCP/IP to also be able to connect to the ORBit2 server (such as Java
> > programs).
> >     
>
> Well, the slowdown occurs when you disable local sockets, so no suprise
> there :)
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>   
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >     
> > > i.e. an orbitrc of
> > >
> > > OBITIIOPIPv4=1
> > > ORBLocalOnly=1
> > >
> > > is roughly 10% slower than
> > >
> > > ORBITIIOPUsock=1
> > >
> > > (on a linux system, in this case)
> > >
> > > We could test DBus over tcp (non-local) against ORBit over TCP
> > > (non-local), though I'm not sure how common a use-case this is.
> > >
> > > I'd expect that the numbers would get more similar between the dbus and
> > > orbit versus using unix sockets, as the time spent in transport would
> > > come to dominate. Message sizes are roughly similar between the two
> > > technologies and almost always would be under MTU.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >       
>
>
>