Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:00, Bill Haneman wrote:
> jamie wrote:...
> 
> >Because Bonobo is equivalent in functionality to COM, I was kinda hoping
> >a future version of Bonobo would be independent of corba or whatever
> >underlying mechanism is used so you could use whatever system works best
> >(obviously everyone will use the fastest and most efficient method
> >whilst keeping Corba for backwards compatibility). I think there's an
> >overwhelming case for replacing corba IDL with XML in bonobo if thats
> >done (XSLT for automatic language bindings would be very handy).
> >
> No no no please; the IDL should be the 'normative' definition for 
> interfaces.  That's what it was invented for; the fact that we are using 
> "CORBA IDL" is less significant than the fact we're using IDL.  The IDL 
> can be compiled to various backends, it doesn't have to be compiled to 
> CORBA stubs/skels.
> 

I was thinking along the lines of having XML as the high level
definition. That could then be translated via XSLT to IDL if you needed
it. I'm not saying scrap corba completely cause we do need it for
backwards comatibility. If you look at the way MS is heading - its
effectively using xml and web services to replace IDL in .Net

jamie.


> If you want to replace bonobo's backend, that's fine provided you 
> preserve the advantages of CORBA (network transparency, 
> language-neutrality, ability to connect to other runtimes like Java VMs 
> and Windows).  What would really suck would be replacing the interface 
> definition language, since that would break all the code that currently 
> relies on the bonobo techniques generally (i.e. all existing bonobo 
> services and interfaces that aren't part of libbonobo/libbonoboui).
> 
> - Bill
> 
> 
> >
> >jamie.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>