Re: [g-a-devel] status of cspi?

[Willie Walker <William Walker Sun COM>]

As far as I know, the cspi has not been marked for deprecation.  The 
framework which AT-SPI currently depends upon (e.g., Bonobo), however, 
has and is why the work to move AT-SPI to D-Bus is being done.

Will

Quiring, Sam wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am having a problem reconciling Ariel Rios's email far below with the
> email from Mark Dorfman immediately below.  Am I misreading these two
> mails or is there an inconsistency?  I was suprised to hear that "The
> CSPI has been marked for deprecation."  When did that happen and where
> is this written down?  Why don't the public docs say "Deprecated" on
> them?
>
> -Sam
>
>
> From: gnome-accessibility-devel-bounces gnome org
> [mailto:gnome-accessibility-devel-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Doffman
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:20 AM
> To: gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> Subject: Re: [g-a-devel] AccessibleDeviceEventMask
> and,SPI_registerDeviceEventListener()
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> > Will CSPI  support D-BUS later after we migrate from CORBA to D-BUS?  
> > Or CSPI will be EOLed?
> >
> > If an AT program is written in C, how could it use the interface 
> > provided by pyatspi?
>
> When moving to D-Bus we have no intention of EOLing cspi. We need all
> the ATs currently written using the library to keep going. Its true that
> at the moment cspi is out-of-action in the D-Bus project. But Mike Gorse
> has recently been putting patches in, so it may be up and running soon.
>
> Two cents on an old issue... My personal preference would be to use
> pyatspi for new ATs. The interface is better, and who wants to code in
> 'C' anyway. :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnome-accessibility-devel-bounces gnome org
> [mailto:gnome-accessibility-devel-bounces gnome org] On Behalf Of Ariel
> Rios
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:57 PM
> To: Mike Gorse
> Cc: gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> Subject: Re: [g-a-devel] status of cspi?
>
> Cspi was marked for deprecation and python bindings are preferred. I
> think your option b is the way to go.
> I can elaborate more on this if you want me to.
>
> ariel
>
> 2009/2/16 Mike Gorse <mgorse mgorse dhs org>:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As part of the Mono accessibility work that we are doing at Novell, we
>
> > need to implement the UIA client api and bridge from at-spi.  This 
> > means that an AT written in UIA should have access to applications 
> > exposing information through atk.  As I see it, we have two options 
> > for using at-spi in C# /
> > .net:
> >
> > (a) Use cspi, possibly writing a wrapper in C#, or
> > (b) write a native C# binding for the dbus-based at-spi.
> >
> > Can someone here explain the situation with cspi?  I am under the 
> > impression that its usage is sort of discouraged, but I am unsure as 
> > to why.  Also, can someone explain the reasons for replacing python 
> > at-spi with pyatspi?  (I believe the former was similar to option A, 
> > but its use is deprecated.)  I'm just trying to investigate / gather 
> > information before we make a decision on how to proceed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Mike G-
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list 
> > Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel