Re: Object referencing in ATK

>I don't think this is safe.  With the latency involved in the multiple layers
>between GTK+ and the AT SPI to the AT itself, I don't think we can insist that
>this be a synchronous operation.  

I don't think Padraig was talking about the AT case so much as what happens in 
the bridge/implementation layers.

We may find that for other technical reasons certain event notifications have to 
be synchronous.  I know, this is suboptimal... but we shall see.


>> If we do I propose to add a state ATK_STATE_DESTROYED to AtkState.
>I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to change the meaning (and name) of the
>TRANSIENT state to something like ATK_STATE_DISASSIOCIATED - to cover the more
>general case that this AtkObject is not associated with an underlying Widget
>(Gtk or otherwise).

I think that there are two different cases under discussion here - a flyweight 
that doesn't have a widget, and a widget-Atkobject whose widget has been 
destroyed.  We should keep these two cases distinct in the API, I think.

so we should keep ATK_STATE_TRANSIENT as well as ATK_STATE_DESTROYED or whatever 
we call it.  I personally prefer ATK_STATE_DEFUNCT since it conveys the idea that 
the object is still around (not yet destroyed) but should not be relied on to be 


>Peter Korn
>Sun Accessibility team
>> > Subject: Re: ATK tarball and GTK+ diff tarball
>> > To: otaylor redhat com, Padraig Obriain Sun COM
>> > Cc: timj gtk org, hp redhat com, gnome-accessibility-list gnome org
>> > MIME-Version: 1.0
>> > Content-MD5: 51/9QzJXLA1qTtKY1ccH7w==
>> >
>> > >Owen,
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>  * Memory management for AtkRelation/AtkRelationSet obviously
>> > >>    needs some thinking through. Does AtkRelation hold strong
>> > >>    references on the target?
>> > >>
>> > >>    AtkRelation/AtkRelationSet either need to be value objects
>> > >>    that can be copied, or they need to be GObjects, These
>> > >>    are basically the only memory management models that work
>> > >>    for language bindings.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >By strong references, do you mean that g_object_ref() has been called on 
>> > >AtkObjects in the target? If so, the answer is no.
>> >
>> > FYI, we are re-thinking this, probably we will ref the AtkObjects that are 
>> > a RelationSet.  This will likely be a part of the overall overhaul (pardon 
>> > phrase) of AtkRelationSet that Padraig is doing at the moment.
>> >
>> > -Bill
>> >
>> > ------
>> > Bill Haneman x19279
>> > Gnome Accessibility / Batik SVG Toolkit
>> > Sun Microsystems Ireland
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnome-accessibility-list mailing list
>> gnome-accessibility-list gnome org
>gnome-accessibility-list mailing list
>gnome-accessibility-list gnome org

Bill Haneman x19279
Gnome Accessibility / Batik SVG Toolkit
Sun Microsystems Ireland 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]