Re: GConf and bonobo-conf

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com> writes: 
> That is, if I need complex data types I just declare them in IDL,
> which
> 
> 	- is the representation I would use to invoke my methods
>           anyways,
> 
> 	- is what bonobo-conf is perfectly happy to pass around,
> 
> 	- is nice and declarative and much less of a pain than writing
>           an astronomically long XML schema.
> 

Right. I basically agree that putting a CORBA_any in there is nice
from an app programmer standpoint, I'm just worried about some of
these other issues Colm mentions.

So in the specific case you mentioned for example, how would you
migrate to a new version of Evolution that wanted to add or remove
fields from those objects? At that point it seems like the convenience
of CORBA_any would go straight downhill, you'd need to keep two
versions of your IDL and handle both.

Also, it seems to me that having corba_any_to_string() and
string_to_corba_any() in Bonobo basically solves the convenience
issue, so "less typing" alone isn't really the point.

Havoc


_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers