Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:

> > In fact, comparing DCOP to Bonobo at all is laughable, DCOP is not
> > even a component model.
> 
> For Automation it hardly matters.  DCOP is a pretty good tool, sure we
> can have one, but not with the broken component naming scheme we have.

If there's something broken, than it's definitely DCOP's naming scheme,
not ours - however, you cannot talk about naming schemes here, because
this are two different things.

>From what I heard about DCOP, it talks to already-running components, such
a running KWrite etc., but is does not activate an object. Talking to a an
already running component has nothing at all to do with a naming scheme -
it's just a matter of identifying that component (by its IOR, PID, whatever).

-- 
Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)