RE: Bonobo 0.1 release plans.

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Matthew Loper wrote:

> > Why do we have to rename this at all?
> >
> > "component" is definitely a misnomer for an interface with those
> > particular three methods.
> 
> In COM, every object exposes those three methods with `IUnknown'; ie,
> _every_ COM component has those three methods. If all COMponents have those
> three methods, why not just make those three methods part and parcel of a
> `component' interface?

Because not all things that have those three methods are bonobo
components, just like not all COM objects are COMponents.

I want to use GNOME::obj for lots of other stuff totally unrelated to
bonobo or components, because the interface is useful as part of almost
all CORBA interfaces, many of which shouldn't really be called components.

Now of course, if you feel strongly that GNOME::Component is the only
available name, then it makes no functional difference. The name is just
to make life easier for the humans who read the code.

In this case I don't think "component" is going to be descriptive of the
actual functionality implied by the interface, so I'm bringing up the
issue.

Yes "obj" is somewhat hard to pronounce, but there are easier words than
"GNOME" to pronounce too :-)

Other possible names:
	BaseObject
	StandardObject
	ObjectControl
etc. etc.

-- Elliot
You're not being rude. I'm just a moron.