Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...
- From: Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>, Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>, gnome-components-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Continuing discussion of oaf ...
- Date: 27 Nov 2000 20:59:56 +0100
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)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]