Re: [g-a-devel]Implementing support for state sets in at-spi

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hello Bill,

On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 10:55, Bill Haneman wrote:
> >         So - I imagine you need some IDL method or other to marshal the thing
> > to a sequence of some semi-private type, and then you'll need to compare
> > them in isEqual.
> > 
> >         How does that sound ?
> 
> Like overkill ;-)

	Fascinating; tell me how you expect to compare a local and a remote
StateSet ? and the sequence of round trip CORBA method latencies.

> At least in many situations I think the StateSet can just be
> an opaque object, only the "states" are exposed (and the methods,
> contains, equals, etc.)

	It's not so much about Objects, but interfaces - thus really, to do
anything like 'equals' or 'contains' efficiently you need to be able to
pass the whole state across the inter-process barrier efficiently - or
pay the price of using the interface iteratively which sounds uber-slow
for state sets (to me).

> Actually I am not sure we need to marshal a special struct here.
> At least it didn't appear to require that much API last time I 
> looked at it; I'll look again.

	My feeling is we can have horribly inefficiency or IDL changes, and I'd
plonk for the latter - it all depends how much we need to use StateSets
really.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot