Re: initial patch for #86016

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Mark,

On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 08:26, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 	Sure, no problem. What I generally do with patches like this
> is apply the patch and read the patch and the patched source together.

	Sorry - being lazy / confidant. I'm happy for the code to go to HEAD -
simply because it improves so much of this broken mess that I'm happy to
live with the consequences - at least for now.

> But if a branch suits you better ... its on the "activation-env"
> branch.

	Ok - I read some more:

	I'm not so convinced that there is a useful distinction between 'unset'
and ''; but I suppose there's no harm in having it, it seems strange
that it's not used in bonobo_activation_setenv - and that this method
takes 2 strings, instead of 1 pointer to the CORBA structure.

	In many ways I'd like to try and farm off some of the complexity -
particularly multi-display stuff to client-land - perhaps passing the
array of arguments to the Factory interface - [ and do some nasty binary
hack to the generic factory method ]. Then again this doesn't solve a
number of problems - such as forking new apps to overcome single i18n
contexts etc.

	Of course - I still think long term with the SESSION_MANAGER mess we
need to implement a SM proxy inside b-a-s. One of the serious issues
that we perhaps havn't taken on-board conceptually - is that some
applications [ eg. evolution ] use b-a-s for locking - ie. to ensure
that only 1 evolution is poking at the data at the backend. Clearly -
it'd be nice to have that split out into a separate daemon and
communicate via CORBA - but that's not there yet.

	So - the thing is that it's trivial to run two evolution's with
different SESSION_MANAGERs - happens all the time; whether that's a
reasonable thing or not I don't know.

	Grief - having written all this I thought I'd CC gcl so it's archived
:-) Hope that's ok.

	I forget why we needed to extend the AID spec ? what was the purpose
behind that ? was it for querying for currently running components ? -
if so, I tend to think that's mostly a waste of time.

	Anyway - it looks really nice overall.

	Thanks so much for looking at this,

	Regards,

		Michael.

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