Re: Oaf IDL re-structuring ...

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Michael Meeks wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > 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.
> 
>         Whatever; I don't care, I don't think we should focus on 
> encouraging people to use Bonobo rather than Oaf by itself
> personaly. Either way, Oaf is very much a part of the Gnome component
> model.

> > 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).
>  
>         This really doesn't help us achieve name space cleanliness at
> all. I think we should get it inside either GNOME/ or Bonobo/.

You are not making the transition from theory to proposal here. :)

OAF stuff is part of OAF and therefore belongs in the OAF namespace, not
the GNOME or Bonobo namespaces. GNOME/Bonobo are users of OAF, not
dependencies of it.

> > BonoboGenericFactory has some things that are Bonobo-specific that it
> > wouldn't be nice to remove.
>   
>         Such as ?

The callback returns a BonoboObject instead of a CORBA_Object.

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

The ability for the callback to return a BonoboObject instead of a
CORBA_Object.

-- Elliot
"The Pythagorean Theorem employed 24 words, the Lord's Prayer has 66 words,
Archimedes Principle has 67 words, the 10 Commandments have 179 words, the
Gettysburg Address had 286 words, the Declaration of Independence, 1,300 words and
finally the European Commission's regulation on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words."