Re: Reuse of Bonoboo IDLs

[bulkmail dds nl]

On Sun Dec 12, 1999 at 07:17:09PM +0000, Ewan Birney wrote:

> I have browsed around the Gnome component IDLs and I am impressed
> by their simplicity and focus on solving the problems at hand. I prefer
> them by and large to the OMG LifeCycle and Persistence standards. The
> questions I need advice on are:
> 
> 1) Does anyone *advise* looking at the OMG specifications. In otherwords
> are there some hidden gotcha's in using the Gnome specifications?
> 
> 2) If I do use the Gnome basic objects (the first to use is the
> GNOME::Unknown) is it better to reuse the GNOME::Unknown as the
> actual name of interface in my, or should I make a MyModule::Unknown
> interface that happened to look identical to GNOME::Unknown (?).
> In other words, is the bonoboo framework meant to be general or specific
> to desktop applications?
> 
> 
> 3) Has anyone done something similar and wants to share their experiences?

2) and 3): the Bonobo interfaces are very much 'inspired' by Microsoft's
COM/OLE. MS uses these interfaces for pretty much everything these days. 

I'd consider the Unknown interface a abstract base class -- apart from ref
counting there's not so much interesting you can do with it. So I'd say you
define you interface, and have it derive from Unknown. 

Note that Bonobo also offers default implementations of these interfaces.
While it's trivial to re-implement Unknown, the Persistance stuff will be a
bit harder (take a look at the libefs dir in the Bonobo distribution).

Cheers,
	Dirk-Jan.



+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ 
| Dirk-Jan C. Binnema <djcb@dds.nl>             | 
| ICQ #50685597, http://www.casema.net/~devnull | 
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+