Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:

> > > Now.  I believe the issue of uniqueness is not going to come up if we
> > > have a few guidelines for constructing the OAFID name space (and still
> > > manage to not use the ugly uuids).
> > 
> > I'm wondering since when uglyness has become an argument against technical
> > requirements.
> 
> If things are ugly, why would I be compeled to use it?  Specially in
> the world of free software, where people are not paid to do things.
> 
> In KDE you can do stuff like (not sure about the syntax):
> 
> 	dcopclient --app KWrite --command 'insertText "Hello"' 
> 
> In the GNOME world we will have:
> 
> 	bonoclient --app
> 	OAFID:GNOME:Gnumeric:Bonobo:1.0:01203-02343-q9450-11029-48101-3924 --command 'insertText "Hello"' 
> 
> If I am looking for a platform to do my scripting, I am more likely
> going to use something sane, and not the Bonobo solution.

What you describe above looks much more like it's contacting a running
instance of an app than activating a new component, so I don't see why
IIDs would be involved. Martin also proposed a system of having
shorter aliases in addition to full IIDs which you have yet to comment
on.

But I definitely agree with Martin that we shouldn't do technically
wrong things for the sake of convenience or popularity. Using `KWrite'
as any kind of unique ID is pretty obviously broken.

In fact, comparing DCOP to Bonobo at all is laughable, DCOP is not
even a component model.

 - Maciej