Re: Oaf IDL re-structuring ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com> writes:

> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> > 	Ideally I would like to rename GNOME_ObjectFactory ->
> > Bonobo_ObjectFactory, since it is clearly part of the component model, but
> > I suspect this will cause too much pain; it seems people insist on not
> > using the BonoboGenericFactory, but love to instantiate their factories
> > the long way round; what do you think ?
> >
> > 	However, if we are renaming create_object to createObject, this
> > makes more sense, since we have to break these anyway.
> 
> The theory:
> 	The idea of a generic factory is part of OAF more than part of
> 	Bonobo.
> 
> 	Lots of programs are going to want to do something like
> 	BonoboGenericFactory that don't necessarily use Bonobo.
> 
> BonoboGenericFactory has some things that are Bonobo-specific that it
> wouldn't be nice to remove.
> 
> I propose:
> 	Renaming GNOME_ObjectFactory to OAF_ObjectFactory (just because
> 	it is bad taste to define stuff in the GNOME namespace from
> 	something that is non-GNOME, strictly speaking).

I agree with Elliot that Bonobo::ObjectFactory is not a good name, but
GNOME::OAF::ObjectFactory would be fine with me; OAF may not be
gnome-dependent really, but we can't just go on eating endless bits of
namespace.

> 	For GNOME 2, implementing an OafGenericFactory GObject, and
> 	having BonoboGenericFactory inherit from it.

Agreed, only I'm not sure the BonoboGenericFactory that inherits from
it will be able to add that much useful functionality.

> Still hasn't figured out how using studlyCaps will benefit anyone besides
> a few Sun hackers,

Nor I, but acceding to them halfway is worse than going whole hog I
think. May as well be consistently incovnenient.

 - Maciej