[g-a-devel]Re: ORBit2 event delivery

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Bill,

On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 11:57, Bill Haneman wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't see this working for us, since there are common
> cases where we create *lots* of accessible objects without backing
> widgets (e.g. tables, etc).  The lifecycle of those objects must be
> controlled by the requesting clients, which are remote.  

	Well - all those accessibles have to be associated with widgets to be
at all useful :-) and furthermore, they have to be lifecycle coupled to
them too unless you want to segv all over the shop I imagine.

> It's also the
> case that the ref()/unref() API is already public, it's hard to see how
> going from public "must use ref counting" to "must not use ref counting"
> is a very manageable thing to do.  Thus, though I think we've only begun
> to discuss our options, I am pessimistic about the prospects for this
> particular proposal.

	Ah - but an immortal object quietly accepts and ignores ref/unrefs so
it's not a problem to have the code still around that does that.

	But either way, after our phone call I think we can cope nicely with
simply a new POA policy, and making linc block after a suitable large
buffer has built up.

	Regards,

		Michael.

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