Re: ServiceInfo, service stereotypes, etc.

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 
> to
> > 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

-- Elliot
[ "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." ]
							- Catch-22

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]