Re: ServiceInfo, service stereotypes, etc.
- From: Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>
- To: "Michael Hoennig (mi)" <mi sun com>
- Cc: gnome-components-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: ServiceInfo, service stereotypes, etc.
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:29:42 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Michael Hoennig (mi) wrote:
> > I skimmed through all the various msgs, and it seems to me that the
> > requirements so far are (a) having OAF aware of services (b) being able
> > use QI to determine whether an object supports a service.
> (a) is a requirement, but (b) was only a suggestion of how we can avoid
> having services. Actually, if we have (b) we don't need (a) anymore. But
> using fake interfaces to specify a service is strange to me.
Well, it is not as nice as having built-in support for "services" (or
whatever they are) in CORBA, but it seems the best solution given the
existing framework. I think the proper long-term way to get this to happen
would be to talk to the OMG about its inclusion in CORBA 3.0, rather than
thinking about adding our own IDL extensions.
> > And if you want to preface your interface names with 'X', 'I', or a
> > Klingon 'tlh', knock yourself out, but I will stick to no prefacing
> > myself, and not be worried about recommending it to others. :)
> It's just one point more against this API merge, I presume. If a
> decision, like this, means that ALL of OpenOffice's about 500 interface
> will change name (not just scope, because scope is different) by
> definition, I'll have hard times to convince the guys here for the
> merger. Remember, we do not only have OpenOffice internal code, we have
> external code as well - in some very big projects.
I don't think you are forced to change all the existing OpenOffice stuff
just because the new recommended way is different. There are in-betweens
[ "In a democracy, the government is the people," Milo explained. "We're people,
aren't we? So we might just as well keep the money and eliminate the middleman." ]
] [Thread Prev