Re: desktop-devel-list digest, Vol 1 #2110 - 16 msgs

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On 30/03/04 18:38, Bill Haneman wrote:

> Well, one other thing to consider is that any capabilities/APIs that 
> do get exposed via 'custom CORBA interfaces, DBUS, etc.' may have to 
> be made accessible/exposed via at-spi as well.  So leveraging at-spi 
> here (i.e. doing it "once") may reduce the overall code burden.
>
> AtkObjects and interfaces have the advantage of being in-process from 
> the application/library developer's point of view - the export to 
> CORBA happens automagically via the atk-bridge code.

My question was whether this was going to be easier than custom CORBA 
APIs.  Unless I am mistaken, an app author would need to keep the tree 
of AtkObjects up to date and in synch with their document model 
(assuming they don't actually store their document model as AtkObjects).

This sounds like it would be more painful than implementing CORBA 
servers in C.  And given the fact that no app is fully exporting their 
document model via CORBA, I see no reason why they would put even more 
effort into an at-spi based solution.

If we want universal scriptability, it needs to be _very_ easy for 
application authors to add.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/