Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

Hi Martin,

On 26 Nov 2000, Martin Baulig wrote:
> Hmm, has anyone of you actually read the following .... ?
>
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-components-list/2000-November/msg00179.html
> Just wondering whether you all like it or whether I don't get any flames
> about it ....
  
        Yes; I read it; I thought I had replied to it, but I can't find it
now. It solves some of the problems, however I don't think we actualy need
to do this withing the current framework.
 
        * Elliot said he was against enforcing anything but the 'OAFIID:'
        prefix.
  
        * We all agree that activating by OAFIID is the right thing to do
        in some circumstances.
  
        * We already have a clean namespace, that has at least as many    
        interfaces as implementations [ cf. the number of interfaces Excel
        exports and the number of implementations (1) ].

        * We can make the UUID optional [ this is essentialy what you
        suggest, but you add the capability to resolve Namespacing cockups
        which _must_ never happen ]                
        
        * I don't see how your scheme is different to just dropping the   
        massive UUID, nor do I see how it helps the problems of cutting
        and pasting these strings. I would prefer just to drop the UUID  
        and properly namespace the string ( which will be neccessary with
        your scheme anyway ). 
  
        * The scheme of having a version id in the name is quite nice in
        fact, especialy in conjunction with a pure textual name, it saves
        mangling it into the main name.
  
        Regards,
  
                Michael.

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