Re: Oaf names & file structure

[Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com>]

> I cannot really imagine scenarios to do this. My personal solutino to such a problem
> would be to design an OAF query which I know to always the return what I need.
> 
> Could you give us a specific example ?

I want to activate Gnumeric.  I dont want to run something else, but Gnumeric.

> yes. It does not bother me. I usually can do one copy/paste when
> I write a component: #define works pretty well and I do not have
> to think about it anymore anytime after.

You are the one saying that using oafids are `difficult to type and
remember', I am pointing out that they are always present.

> This argument has not much ground: if you write a program, you have
> to learn the API of the libs you are using. Such is  life.

I rather use `bonobo_get_object ("id")' than learn a query system to
launch components.  For instance, I do not run a query on my system to
figure out where sendmail is, I type /usr/lib/sendmail.  I do not
"query" the system for a list of compilers, I invoke the one I want. 

In a Sun machine you might have lcc, gcc, and cc.  I dont run a
"query" on my GUI to figure this out, I manually invoke the one I
like. 

> Theorically, if I yoiu have components, they should specicy their whole
> features in their CORBA interfaces which means that you SHOULD be able to replace
> them with a component iomplementing the same exact set of interfaces.

Mhm?  Most OLE2 applications just "exposed" the fact that they
supported a few of the "standard" interfaces.  There was no
distinction between Excel or Word.  But when the time came to insert a
component, you would have to use a specific implementation ID.

> So, I must say I do not really see what you need the IID for in your code.

You are being difficult for the sake of it.   If IIDS are not
required, then lets banish them right now.

> Those are not random components: they implement a set of CORBA interfaces and define
> a set of specific OAF attributes. The OAF query langage is powerful enough so that
> you can use it to do a lot of fancy stuff. And it has DOCUMENTATION !!! :)

So?  Why are you trying to force me to use your view of the world?
Maybe for Nautilus it makes a lot of sense to have lots of choices,
but not on every situation.

What we are trying to discuss here is a better naming for the IIDs,
and it seems you argue that they can arbitraryly suck because you are
not supposed to use them.  Still, I am exposed to them, and I do use
them, and you are basically telling me `I do not care'.  If you do not
care, then stop introducing noise, and let me discuss with people who
have a genuine interest in solving this problem rather than making
trouble.  

> This should also be the case of Evolution: if I want Evolution to use
> my own mail component, I should be able to change it by just adding a new 
> config file without changing the code.

That would ammount to a large ammount of work that is not specified on
an IDL file.  You might repeat over and over `everything must be on
the IDL file', but the fact is: not everything is on an IDL file. 

Again, if you are not interested in debating a better naming system
for the IIDs, please step off.

Miguel.