Re: a proposal for 2 OAF features

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jaka Mocnik wrote:

> merely something to distinguish the case when the object was activated
> exclusively.

Except there is no real case where you would want to act differently
because it had been activated with EXCLUSIVE (or any of the other flags)
and wouldn't have the flags on hand to tell you that already. If
activation succeeds, OAF_REG_SUCCESS should be returned, no matter what
flags were passed and how the activation was actually done.

Also, pondering the name some more - "EXCLUSIVE" seems like the wrong
thing, because it could be easily perceived as meaning "this is the
exclusive (only) activation of this object on the entire system." Would
something like "PRIVATE" be more accurate to everyone else? I like it
better, anyways...

> > > > +extern gboolean oaf_exclusive;
> > 
> > A global variables is very broken for this case. Multiple objects might be
> > activated in the same process. You have to do implement exclusivity only
> > for the object activated from the command line.
> fine, how about --oaf-exclusive=IID and a gchar *exclusive_iid then?

Just implement something that solves the problem (this sounds like it
would :-)

> > These two hunks are totally incorrect. oaf-servreg is not related to
> > activated object registration.
> ekhm. as far as I could understand the code, oaf_active_server_register
> is precisely the function that registers the new server with OAF. so how
> come oaf-servreg is not related to activated object registration?

Oh erk sorry, I misparsed the filename. Never mind.

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