Re: Accessability Interfaces

["Steve Lee" <steve fullmeasure co uk>]

Thanks Bill.

BTW is the presentation you did at Gnome Boston available online yet?

On 11/8/06, Bill Haneman < Bill Haneman sun com> wrote:

Steve Lee wrote:
> Well I was really making a fairly general question ignoring the layers
> and agree it depends on the language or libraries you use. My question
> was not so much the mechanics but more what you are conceptually
> doing. Perhaps it is rather fuzzy distinction. It's all useful info
> thanks David.
>
> My main experience is with the windows equivs of MSAA and COM. Using C
> you can do it the painful way of rolling all your own low level client
> code, you can use general classes and libraries, you can use #imports
> that creates classes for you from the IDL. In Python for general com
> you use Mark Hammond's wonderful code that creates python classes from
> the IDL (though event sinks are a little fidely).
>
> From what I've seen ATK provides an abstract API devoid of CORBA
> details and perhaps even a little different from AT-SPI. Rather like
> the Python COM classes, or a library built on top of them.
Yes, but bear in mind that ATK is an in-process API and therefore is not
available to assistive technologies (since they are in a separate
process space from the apps which provide the ATK services).  ATK is not
an abstraction on top of AT-SPI, but vice-versa.

You might find this presentation of interest:
http://www.gnome.org/~billh/ArchitecturalOverview.odp

Bill
>
> Steve
>
> On 11/8/06, *Bill Haneman* <Bill Haneman sun com
> <mailto:Bill Haneman sun com >> wrote:
>
>     Hi David, Steve:
>
>     I think there are two aspects to Steve's question.  One aspect has
>     to do
>     with the exact API call syntax that the client uses to access AT-SPI,
>     which I think is what you are referring to.  The "raw" C CORBA
>     bindings
>     are a bit ugly (while the python ones are elegant) but don't actually
>     require the client to add any CORBA-specific code.   The second aspect
>     of the question is the one I was addressing - whether the client
>     needs
>     to know much about CORBA details.  That also depends a little on the
>     client's programming language, but mostly the answer is "no", the only
>     place where the AT-SPI client has to write any CORBA code is when
>     it's
>     implementing the AT-SPI "EventListener" interface which it passes
>     to the
>     AT-SPI Registry, via which the client receives event notifications
>     from
>     running applications.
>
>     best regards
>
>     Bill
>
>     David Bolter wrote:
>     > Hi Steve,
>     >
>     > The at-spi hides nasty stuff like CORBA behind an API.  In early
>     days we
>     > used the cspi bindings (for C), but we should all now use the
>     normative
>     > C library libspi.  I imagine you are most interested in python
>     bindings
>     > -- which I haven't used (yet).
>     >
>     > Note, gok hasn't migrated from cspi to libspi yet (blush).
>     >
>     > cheers,
>     > David
>     > GOK Maintainer
>     >
>     > Steve Lee wrote:
>     >
>     >> Out of interest do assistive technologies (AT) get to use an
>     API or
>     >> library (similar to ATK for the server applications) or do they use
>     >> direct CORBA calls?
>     >>
>     >>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Lee
> www.oatsoft.org < http://www.oatsoft.org>
> www.fullmeasure.co.uk <http://www.fullmeasure.co.uk>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-accessibility-list mailing list
> gnome-accessibility-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
>

-- 
Steve Lee
www.oatsoft.org
www.fullmeasure.co.uk