Re: D-Bus
- From: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- To: Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: D-Bus
- Date: 04 Mar 2003 09:52:23 +0000
Hi Alex,
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 13:35, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> A 'delay till idle' POA policy, should such a beast be written, can't
> be introduced without a great amount of care. Its very easy to get a
> back-call which means you will deadlock with a 'delay till idle'
> policy, since outgoing CORBA calls are blocking.
Of course - and therein is the rub. Still - the more trivial 'process
oneways at idle' would solve many of the problems people are seeing -
and incur no real complexity - beyond that of invocation re-ordering,
which is just one of those things.
> Furthermore the Bonobo APIs have one global POA used by all
> BonoboObjects, so having several types of POAs in gnome is very hard.
That's pretty easy to fix in libbonobo.
> You are the maintainer and main proponent of Bonobo. Why haven't you
> fixed this, if you say it is so easy? I know we pointed this problem
> out for you a long time ago, and we even discussed this recently and
> you seemed to understand that it is a problem[1].
Since December I've been working on other things - however I was making
linc/ORBit2 thread safe in my spare time - the changes starting from
around that time. Clearly - it's hard to deploy that until Gnome 2.4. I
was even working on this on the way to FOSDEM where I was substantially
discouraged.
> Yes, it is true that by using ORBit-specific non-CORBA functionallity you
> can in fact get connection-based lifetime handling for a simple
> daemon-style setup (such as a message bus). However, it is much less
> useful when handling for instance embedded UI components, or any other
> case where object ownership is "interesting".
Sure - I'm happy to extend the ORBit2 functionality beyond what CORBA
specifies, that's no real issue. However - you say that the lifecycle
problem exists - and that it's much less useful for handling embedded UI
components - and yet you appear to propose no solution - short (I
imagine) of glupping everything into one big fragile process.
Regards,
Michael.
--
mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]