Re: a proposal for 2 OAF features

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Elliot Lee <sopwith@redhat.com> writes:

> 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.

I agree, it only makes checking for an error result more complicated
otherwise.

> 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...

"PRIVATE" sounds better to me too.
 
> > > > > +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 :-)

Is is possible that OAF would later try to activate other objects
(either private or non-private) from the same running executable? If
so, the exclusive_iid variable may need to be a list, and perhaps
should apply only to the first activation of a given IID?

 - Maciej