Re: a proposal for 2 OAF features

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Jaka Mocnik wrote:

> I've got two proposals concerning the OAF implementation:
> 
> 1. currently, only one active server per IID can be registered in the
> ObjectDirectory. I think that the per_iid hashtable should store a
> GList for each IID, containing all registered active servers (ie, if
> multiple servers are activated using the OAF_FLAG_IGNORE_EXISTING
> flag). with each registration a new server would be prepended to this
> list and with each activation of an already existing server, the
> server at the head of the list would be activated and moved to the
> tail. this would serve as a simple balancing algorithm.

This is broken as-is - the semantics are undefined, etc. If you wish to do
activation from a pool of objects, activate a factory via OAF and then the
individual objects via a custom interface.

> 2. I think that OAF should add an option to _only_ activate and _not_
> register the server (something like a flag OAF_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) in
> order to enable an application to use the activated server
> exclusively. this implies IGNORE_EXISTING. as the registration is done
> by the server and not OAF, it would mean passing a command line
> argument to the server exe (let's call it "--oaf-exclusive") or a
> parameter to the Factory object. I don't know what to do with shared
> libs for this purpose.

I think this is mostly what the IGNORE_EXISTING flag means in practice -
give me an object that no-one else will use. So a bug fix there and
perhaps a clarification interfacewise would be better than keeping
IGNORE_EXISTING with same meaning.

-- Elliot
The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8 meters per second per second.