Re: service stereotype thingies

[Michael Hoennig "(mi)" <mi sun com>]

> OK, but I don't think it will be 100% possible not to break the
> StarOffice/OpenOffice API while moving to Bonobo. Maybe I am wrong.

No, you are right, I don't think so either. But we will have to offer a 
migration path. Probably we could offer both, the old and the new 
interfaces. Thus, the less we have to change, the smaller OpenOffice will be.

> But if GNOME has to eat some breakage, it's unfair to say you guys
> should not suffer any changes, even when technically appropriate. Or
> at least I do not want to see Bonobo just become a clone of UNO.

I'm not speaking about NO changes, I just want to avoid all changes which 
are avoidable at all.

> "interface" has a well-established meaning which is reasonably
> unconfusing in this context. 

Unfortunately not. It is actually not clear if somebody means the 
specification or a specific implementation of an interface or even a 
concrete runtime interface. Just my experience.

> The term "service" is incredibly broad
> and can mean anything. To me it's like calling something "arg" or
> "param" or "thing". ServiceSpec clarifies that it's a description of a
> service, not a CORBA server, a network server, not a service in the
> CORBA sense like "event service" or "trader service", not a service in
> the totally abstract sense, etc.

This IS the same as for "interface". An interface in an IDL does mean the 
specification not a specific implementation. And so is a "service" within 
an IDL the specification for a CORBA server. It does not seem we make any 
progress in this discussion ;-(

> I'm not going to fight this out with you, but I will be disappointed
> if you think only GNOME should change interfaces, and not open-office.

No! If that's the point, absolutely not. OpenOffice will have to "change" 
interfaces too. The point is just: We can NOT change! All what we can do 
is, supporting the old and the new set. So I just want to reduce the 
number of interfaces where we have to support two version.

> FWIW I also want to change the service spec format from whatever your
> current format is. I have considered XML, but perhaps something
> IDL-like where you can list mandatory and optional IDL interfaces and
> include an OAF query for attribute requirements would be nice.

That does even make less sense to me. It's just work for the hell of the 
work itself. We can rename the file extension, no problem. But XML as a 
source file format is a pain in the ass to edit. XML is great for 
different software syttems, and for emergency it is human 
readable/writeable, but not ideal for that purpose. And as you know, it's 
hard that people write documentation at all, so don't make it hard for 
them to write documentation.

To me, a "service" is just another kind of stereotype, like a struct or 
an interface. You could even generate code for it, and if it's only to 
verify conformity of implementations.

	Michael