RE: Bonobo 0.1 release plans.

["Matthew Loper" <matthew loper org>]

Elliot said:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> > Well, the idea of having query_interface there is calling for the
> > thing to be a component all in itself: it means that you can query the
> > object to figure out whether it support one or more "plugs" or
> > interfaces that people can connect to.
>
> Nod, but I usually think of a component as an object that implements an
> interface that can do useful work. This GNOME::obj interface is just for
> utility purposes.

That is indeed the drawback of using `component' as an interface name;
`component' usually refers to implementation, not an interface.

However, I like using `component' because...
* the ref/unref/QI trio is so fundamental (Elliot in fact suggested renaming
it 'base'), because it provides meta-interface accessability and object
refcounting/destruction; this brings it closer to the generic nature of the
word `component'
* we need a name for the `class of objects which implement that interface',
and component is a good one; ie muddying the waters btw interface &
implementation for this special case seems okay
* All COM objects (= components) implement this interface

Unknown would be fine as well (ugly, but familiar to COM programmers), but
we need to go ahead and pick so we can spend more time programming :)

And I vote `component'.

> It's no big deal (except being longer to type :-), but I did want to make
> it clear that this interface is going to be used in a lot more places than
> Bonobo components.

Yes! Many of the ideas that come with OLE/COM/bonobo are intended to be
generic enough to be relevant to almost any application.

Matthew@loper.org
http://loper.org/~mmlop