Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

Hi Maciej,

On 20 Nov 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > UUID's are a short term hack, that relies on the assumption that
> > most people will not want to implement any new interfaces, which is
> > just silly. True, currently it is too difficult to do so, but I
> > expect this to become easier through a several pronged strategy.
>
> I don't see what implementing new interfaces has to do with it?

        If every component implements a new interface then every component
already needs to deal with the namespacing issues. Consequently for every
application that implements a new interface the UUID is just a pain in the
butt. Your thesis that _Implementation_ ID's are in any way different to
interface ID's is based on the ( currently accurate ) sad premis that new
components will typicaly not implement any new interfaces.

> I don't think being easy to type is a requirement; #defines should be   
> used anyway to avoid typos, the bane of magic string constants.

        No one is arguing with this; however you still have to copy the
massive string from the oafinfo file to the C source file. I do not find
the argument of 'compile #define files from the oafinfo files' argument
over-convincing. This will create more autoconf hassle, needing manual
rule insertion all over the place, and it is not clear what to call the
#define.

        Anyway; the arguments all essentialy boil down to the fact that we
both want a homogeneous naming convention, you seem to prefer:     

        OAFINFO::Massive random number - IID
        IDL:Massive random number:1.0  - interface name ( if possible )
and thus logicaly: ( speculation here )
        /prefix/share/oaf/Massive random number.oafinfo
        
        I prefer a human readable namespace which is:
        
        OAFINFO:GNOME/Gnumeric/InstanceFactory - IID
        IDL:GNOME/Gnumeric/Sheet               - interface name
        /prefix/share/oaf/GNOME/Gnumeric.oafinfo - oafinfo file.
        
        I know which I would prefer to type, negotiate, manipulate and
activate by... it seems MS use a human readable setup for their registry  
keys, which seems to work ( to me ).

        Regards,

                Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot