Re: GEP 5: New Object Adaptor for ORBit2

[Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>]

Hi,

On 26 Sep 2002, Michael Meeks wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 00:00, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 	The discussion period for this is nearly over so I was just
> > looking over some of the mails ....
>
> 	I was fairly convinced that the consensus was that it wasn't worth
> doing, so I wasn't looking at the code any more :-)

	Hmm .. :/

> > 	There is no reason why we should not ship this with ORBit2
> > just because we're not going to immediately use it in Bonobo ..
>
> 	Well - there is a school of thought that says that 2 APIs that do the
> same thing differently is better than 1 :-) but therein lies madness
> IMHO. I think it'd be excellent to push a lot of what we do in
> BonoboObject down into the ORB - but introducing new APIs that we don't
> expect people to use, and that we then have to support seems to be folly
> to me - especially when it doesn't seem to buy us anything.

	Well - there is also a school of thought that says that ORBit2
has a life of its own outside of Bonobo :-) Your arguments are good
arguments for not doing what I propose in libbonobo until some point
in the distant future - that is that we pull out the implementation of
Bonobo::Unknown from BonoboObject and add it as a new API that does
just that called BonoboUnknown.

	But that's not what this GEP is about. Strangely, you're not
discussing requirements here. You're discussing whether the prototype
meets the *proposed* requirements. I would like this "integration with
Bonobo" requirement be that "due consideration be given to allowing the
adaptor and servant be integrated into libbonobo in the future rather"
than "the adaptor must be compatibly integrated into libbonobo now".

> 	Anyway; I'll have to have another poke - I was cruising quietly towards
> rejecting it's addition on the above grounds, if there's actual dissent
> I'll look again. It seemed that Havoc said essentially the same thing
> on-list AFAIR.

	Consider this to be dissent. And also seriously consider
getting yourself new memory and text interpretation modules ..

<havoc>
I would be really really dubious about massive swapping out of the
libbonobo implementation in the 2.2 timeframe. My suggestion would be
to add this feature to ORBit for some apps to play with in 2.2, and
then look at using it pervasively in the 2.4 or 3.0 timeframe.
</havoc>

	:-)

Good Luck,
Mark.