[g-a-devel] AT-SPI questions
- From: Olaf Jan Schmidt <ojschmidt kde org>
- To: accessibility-atspi freestandards org
- Cc: gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org, kde-accessibility kde org, Harald Fernengel <harald trolltech com>
- Subject: [g-a-devel] AT-SPI questions
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:11:42 +0200
Hi!
I am probably still misunderstanding some things, so I am summarising what I
have understood so far of the whole AT-SPI picture. This email functions both
as an attempt to find possible misunderstandings, and as an explanation why
it is important for KDE to move AT-SPI onto D-Bus. Please correct all wrong
assumptions, and keep in mind that I have no power to tell Trolltech what to
do with AT-SPI.
Imaging a new, much improved version of kmousetool talking to KOffice on a KDE
desktop on FreeBSD or IBM AIX.
The GNOME accessibility team suggests to implement AT-SPI support in Qt by
linking to ATK. This requires significant changes in glib and/or ORBit2, and
significant effort for the Qt-ATK bridge. It would also only deal with the
application side. Doing a move to D-Bus later would be the same amount of
work as doing it now, meaning that going for D-Bus directly takes
significantly fewer resources altogether.
GNOME applications read a gconf key to check whether AT-SPI is enabled. Do
they also watch changes of the gconf keys during runtime in case the setting
gets changed? And what do non-GNOME applications do instead?
The assistive technologies use Bonobo-activation to start the AT-SPI registry.
Does this mean either linking to libbonobo or reimplementing it with a
different ORB?
There is no complete C++ ORB that runs on all platform KDE targets, which
means we have five options:
1. Abandon all plans that we have for assistive technologies.
2. Put a lot of work into a solution that works on only some of our target
platforms.
3. Make KDE applications support both Bonobo-AT-SPI and D-Bus-AT-SPI. This
would mean doing twice the work for only half a solution, because GNOME
applications would still fail to work with KDE-based assistive technologies.
4. Write an incompatible version of AT-SPI.
5. Convince GNOME to join us in our move to D-Bus, which means work on the
framework now, but significantly fewer work for the authors of KDE-based ATs
later.
The GNOME accessibility team suggests to make the CORBA- and Bonobo-based
version of AT-SPI a part of the LSB standard, which also means standardising
all dependencies of the AT-SPI registry. Which exactly are these?
The LSB requires interfaces to be around for at least 6 years, which means
that a D-Bus-based version of AT-SPI would be non-standard until at least
2013.
ORBit2 is described by Michael Meeks as not sufficiently documented, virtually
unmaintained and only a "subset" of the OMG specification. Which role does
Michael Meeks have among the ORBit2 developers?
I once suggested to reduce the number of dependencies the AT-SPI registry has,
and Bill Haneman answered that this doesn't make sense since our long-term
goal is D-Bus anyway. Or did I misunderstand him?
Bill also say that a D-Bus-based variant of AT-SPI is not a real AT-SPI. How
does this fit to the agreed "many worlds" approach? Or did he only mean that
we should use an IDL compiler for themove to D-Bus?
I know that the GNOME team has spent a lot of time for discussing
interoperability with KDE, and I truly thankful for that. I also appreciate
the offer for constructive discussion of the obstacles towards AT-SPI use in
Qt and KDE.
And please don't see our push for a D-Bus-based as an attempt to create
incompatibilities. Quite the contrary - it is a compliment that we plan to
make the excellent work of the GNOME accessibility team useful for us.
Summary: My fear is that implementing the AT-SPI support in Qt via ATK
initially will make it impossible to prevent LSB cementation of
Bonobo-AT-SPI, which would totally evaporate the goodwill towards AT-SPI that
we have build within the KDE community. Making the decision to go directly
for D-Bus is certainly not popular with everyone, but it might be the wisest
course in a long-term perspective.
Olaf
--
Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards
accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of
http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]