Re: Where to put your big widgets ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Ettore Perazzoli <ettore@helixcode.com> writes:


>   Personally I would like a component system that can also be used as
> an object model.  I.e. you wouldn't need to make a GtkWidget
> (GtkObject) and then wrap it as a component, duplicating all the
> methods as CORBA calls (as it happens with many Bonobo components
> now): you should be able to design a system or an application built of
> components directly, using all the IDL interfaces internally.

What I want to see instead is that using a Bonobo componentis as close as
possible in practice to using an ordinary GtkWidget.

COM achieves something close to this this because both the normal
controls and the COM controls are both accessed pretty much like
normal C++ objects by the client. In Bonobo, there are times I have to
worry about the difference between the CORBA object and the GtkObject
wrapper on the client side. For instance, if I query_interface, I need
to know how to construct an appropriate Gtk wrapper for the CORBA
object I get as a result. I can't just query_interface and immediately
get a GtkObject looking thing that I want to use directly.

But I feel this discussion is going in the wrong order. I think we
should first figure out what we want out of a widget repository, and
then figure out how to implement it. No one has clearly defined what
the requirements are yet. Debating implementation methodology now
seems premature.

I will create the list tomorrow (unless, as I mentioned to Nat,
someone else wants to) and we can start the discussion there. Anyone
who would like to be already subscribed when I create it please email
me personally. I will assume those who have participated in the
discussion so far and those who were chartered by the steering
committee to come up with a proposal for this issue want to be on the
list unless they specifically tell me otherwise.

 - Maciej