Re: Libole2.



On Sun May 21, 2000 at 01:11:15PM +0200, textshell@t-online.de wrote:

> Maybe Maciej and Miguel are right. We need some file-like way to access
> the raw data (e.g. gnome VFS) and the OO - moniker access.

I agree. Maciej and Miguel are trying to solve different problems, and thus Miguel's solution (monikers) is not the solution the Maciej's problem.

Monikers use the 'chain-of-responsibility' DP, where each of the monikers resolves one chain. However, for opening files you really want to know the kind of object the final chain is binding to (e.g. to give the user a chance to choose the program he or she wants to use to do this).

So, monikers are a really nice solution to bind to some object iff you don't care how the actual binding takes place. For a file manager, this is not a good solution.

> The moniker-system would need an additional method to get the uri (or
> something like that) to the raw data of that object.
> This extension to the moniker-system is required because the moniker's
> document structure view maybe totally different from the data
> organisation and position (e.g. linking).

You mean a method on monikers to tranfer the type info/raw data of the final chain of the monikers to traverse 'upstream' back to the client at the start. This is quite an extension to monikers... The problems here is  that you break several ( #monikers ) layers of encapsulation. 

So, while using monikers *everywhere* (including in the file manager) has it's benefits, it does require a drastic change to the moniker concept, IMHO.

> Letting the user choose the aplication to open dthe data with, would be
> easy with this in place. Just get the uri to the data and it's type,
> then find a application that can handle that type and pass it the uri of
> the data.
> Normaly i think this will only be needed for the last part of the
> moniker, if all appliction handling that format have the same moniker
> syntax. Anyway if we can split the monikers at the right places, we
> could deligate the choice to the user on any level, If a user wishes
> that degree of choice.

Needless to say that Nautilus really requires some intimate knowledge of the stuff it's opening, exactly the stuff monikers are supposed to hide...  So, I wonder if at all a fm should use monikers...

--Dirk-Jan.





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]