Re: bonobo-hunkajunk.patch

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Nat Friedman wrote:

>  > 	. Allows getting at the gnome_object_base_epv/gnome_object_epv again,
>  > 	  so that it is convenient to use them when the epv does not need
>  > 	  modifying. (oops I will remove the gnome_object_get_epv()
>  > 	  "fixing" from here)
> 
>     This is incorrect, as you've introduced a semantic inconsistency
> between gnome_object_get_epv(), and all of the other epv-getting
> functions (e.g. gnome_embeddable_get_epv()).

No read my comment "(oops I will remove the ...)"

I know my change was incorrect, ignore it.

> POA_GNOME_Unknown__epv *
> gnome_object_get_epv (gboolean fresh)

Actually, I think this is the right way to do it throughout. Will fix.

>  > 	. Remove a check from gnome_object_add_interface that prevented me
>  > 	  from adding an interface to a GnomeBonoboWidget's
>  >        control-frame.
> 
>     Sorry, you can't use gnome_object_add_interface() after an
> aggregate object has already been exposed to the ravages of the World
> Out There (although I admit I can't see where the hell the
> ControlFrame is getting that second reference).

Either the widget is reffing the object, or the object is being reffed by
the remote end right away.

But I have to disagree with the idea that an AO can't add interfaces after
it has been exposed. The guarantee should only be that an interface is not
removed once added. In this particular instance it is impossible to avoid
exposing the object before adding the interface.

(I think we went through something related to this topic already.)
-- Elliot
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they did it by
killing all who opposed them.