Re: moniker question

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Lutz,

	I don't have much time at the show but here are a few thoughts:

On 1 Feb 2001, Lutz Müller wrote:
> (1) Coding was quite easy: I simply replaced all "http" by "camera" -
> voila. Do we really have to duplicate that much code?

	For components that can only possibly be 'root' level -
ie. http: the comment is perhaps fair - for anything stackable, pkzip,
tar, gz, etc. the situation is rather different - the Something -> Stream
approach is potentialy rather different - the moniker should in time take
advantage of the existance of exotic interfaces on its parent - perhaps
mmap to optimize performance.

> (2) Another issue is that bonobo-moniker-http only creates an empty
> control. It starts the ebrowser, but doesn't send a stream to it. I
> assume it should be like "moniker-test -c file:/image.jpg", where I
> get EOG back displaying the picture. Is this a bug?

	This sounds broken.

> (3) Even more, the program to use for display ebrowser) is hardcoded
> in bonobo-moniker-http. What if I wanted to resolve
> "http://server/image.jpg";, why would I want to use the ebroser? I'd
> rather like to get back a decent image viewing program.

	That is rather broken too and doesn't belong in bonobo.

> (4) In the camera case, I can't hardcode eog, as some digital cameras
> can also store movies or sound. Therefore, I guess I should use
> another moniker to resolve the stream I get from the camera. BUT: How
> can I resolve a stream without temporarily saving it to disk? Is there
> a way of getting a control directly from a stream? That would be
> useful for the bonobo-moniker-http, too.

	Yes; you need to look for interfaces supporting the PersistStream
interface and then call 'load' with your stream on that interface.

	HTH,

		Michael.

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