Re: initial patch for #86016

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Mark,

On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 06:00, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 	So commit to HEAD and we'll fix later ?

	Yes - it seems to fix more than it breaks :-)

> 	Oh, there's another thing ! Damn, my minds a seive.
> 
> 	With the current setup there's no way of doing a multi-display
> (or multi anything) factory. I had planned on doing that by passing
> the passing the arguments to createFactory, but didn't becaus eI
> couldn't see an easy way around the ABI problems ... Another thing for
> the TODO list :-)

	Yes - I saw that. Of course - this doesn't much matter, as long as we
can specify that this is the case on a per-executable basis; I think we
need a 'discriminate_by_envs' stringv or somesuch in there, that
defaults to AUDIODEV:DISPLAY etc. or perhaps an opt-out clause ;-)
Of course multi-display controls are pretty funky - I'm itching to see
them in action :-) we still need the DISPLAY stuff to go down the
control/frame handshake thing though AFAIR.

> 	I'm still not sure what you're hoping to achieve by that. Are
> you envisaging that components would be able to take part in a session
> checkpoint or ... ? If not, then I don't see what's wrong with just
> having out of proc components not connect to the session manager at
> all. You can do that with some DONT_CONNECT_TO_THE_SM arg to
> gnome_program_init - you don't have to unset SESSION_MANAGER and end
> up preventing children from connecting as well.

	Sure - unsetting session_manager is bad news. But the thing is - in a
multi-display world we need to have each app potentially listening to
multiple session managers; and that's particularly likely with Controls.

>	Well, the idea behind returning an aid from activate() is that
> you can use that AID when calling activate_from_id and get the same
> object (if it still exists) or a new object activated the same way. I
> think we have to keep ensuring this.

	Hmm - ultimately, I'm not convinced that anyone actually uses the aid
returned from activate; by contrast - everyone assumes that calling the
same query / activate with the same OAFIID will return the same object
:-)

	Anyway; thanks for doing the great work,

	Regards,

		Michael.

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