Re: service stereotype thingies - what ?

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

Hi Maciej,

On 23 Oct 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > The thing which's name you don't like, specifies a certain service
> > implementation promise to offer. I really don't see, why you don't
> > like the term.
> 
> Your arguments have some value,

	In fact they convince me quite compellingly.

> > BTW: We have several interfaces which deal with services, I
> > think it would be stupid to change those (of cause they have "service" in
> > their identifier) just because somebody does not like the name. If we
> > merge BONOBO and OpenOffice API, we will have hard times to explain to
> > those developers who have existing code on our API, anyway. I don't see
> > any logical reason to make transition even harder.
>  
> Since Sun asked the GNOME project to rename every method in our IDL, I
> do not have much sympathy. :-)

	It seems you don't have a sense of perspective.

> (BTW I will do the same rename in OAF and with approval from the
> maintainer do the same for Nautilus if Miguel and Michael actually go
> through with it).

	Many thanks; this is extremely appreciated !

> I think you will have to break interfaces anyway, because in GNOME we
> cannot specify services at the IDL level, since that is not OMG IDL  
> compliant.

	Since ( as we have endlessly discussed ) the service concept has
no need to be in a '.idl' file we can have '.sidl' files ( unless someone
can think of an amusing acronym ) that will express this useful contract.

> How about service-spec (or service_spec, or serviceSpec) as a
> compromise. It's close to what you have, but less likely to be
> confusing as to what it means.

	The thing is this doesn't confuse me at all, has it been
confusing Sun's internal programmers ? Funnily I understood the
concept having just read the StarOffice IDL. But perhaps we should
add an entry to the FAQ when we implement this.

	Regards,

		Michael.

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