Re: GEP 9: merging bonobo-activation & libbonobo

On Qui, 2003-03-13 at 19:25, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 23:49, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > On Qua, 2003-03-12 at 20:35, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > 	FWIW, the GObject adaptor would provide a solution to the "I want to
> > > use BonoboObject part". Granted its not finished, but I'm willing to do
> > > the last bit of work required ...
> > 
> >   Can you tell me what this "GObject adaptor" is?  I don't have a
> > clue...
> 	Its like the "make it wasy to implement CORBA interfaces with a
> GObject" part of BonoboObject ... but in ORBit2. See:

  Thanks for the clarification.  Now I vaguely remember reading about
this.  I just didn't recognize the name.

  BTW, regarding GEP 5, I don't agree that POAManager states aren't
useful.  Just because something isn't widely used doesn't mean it is not
useful.  Maybe developers just don't it is there.  I think that
siwtching between the 'holding' and 'active' states can be very useful
to keep reentrancy under the developer's control.

  Back to the subject, you could have a valid argument indeed, or maybe
not.  Does GObject adaptor provide implementation inheritance, like
BonoboObject?  If so, maybe we can implement BonoboObject in
bonobo-activation instead of libbonobo.  If not, it's still best to
merge, because having to implement BonoboObject twice is not a good


Gustavo Joćo Alves Marques Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]