Re: Size negotiation...

[Mathieu Lacage <lacage email enst fr>]

Hi Michael,

> 	Well this was a decision that was taken by Nat, and that I
> reccommended and wholeheartedly approve of. I agree we should prune the
> methods if they are not implemented, but I find it hard to believe that
> people are using raw CORBA to manipulate the sizes of embedded objects.

I believe it quite possible that someone one day implements the bonobo
interfaces with KDE/QT in which case the size-negociation is -not to say
the least- _needed_. 

> 
> 	Bonobo's control interface relies on a secondary transport
> mechanism which is in this case Gtk/X, in the abscence of Gtk/X you will

I do not agree. Bonobo relies on an X window magic number.
Windows has a similar mechanism.
I don't know for other systems but I believe that all windowing 
systems have such a similar system of Window identifiers which
alow you to write from an app to another app windows.

This means that the only place where Bonobo is dependant on GTK/X
now is the size-negociation and this can be corrected so easily that
it drives me nuts.

> have to re-write the GUI transport layer, which happens to also propagate
> sizing information. I see no problem  here whatsoever apart from a couple

The problem here is that the Windowing layer does not propagate the size 
information and that GTK size-negociation mechanism is NOT universal which
means that if we have such a method which depends completely on GTK, we 
lose a great deal of the interest of the IDLs since implementing them is not
enough to get a conformant implementation.

Enforcing implementors to use GTK is definitely not a very good idea.

> of unimplemented stubs.
> 
> 	If you really want to deal with the size negotiation issue, I
> think you would be better served to create an interface that allows a
> scrolled viewport to specify its size to an embedded control without
> specifying the virtual size that it contains, this is IMHO a far more
> pressing issue.

This does not look like such a difficult problem, no ? 
Just needs time to be implemented.

In the meantime, waiting for such a system to be implemented, my feeling
is that we should implement the current interfaces. I understand your
reasons but my feeling is that having something relying on GTK in Bonobo
implementation is just plain evil.
It just drives me nuts to see such a thing: the perfecteness of bonobo 
being spoiled by this...  ;)


/me goes nuts.
Mathieu, getting crazy...

-- 
Mathieu Lacage, mathieu@gnome.org
212 rue de tolbiac, 75013 Paris, FRANCE
http://www.advogato.org/person/mathieu