Re: Towards better OAF/Bonobo integration

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 29Jul2001 03:18AM (+0200), Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>
> I really think this is a good idea
> 

Glad you think so.

> and yes, just one comment, and sorry for insisting, but, what about remote object activation?
> AFAIK, it does not work yet, so I think this OAF/Bonobo integration
> could be the right moment to think about this. Remote object activation
> is very important for a component system,
> and this is, IMO, what GNOME's component system is missing.
> 
> The other day, talking with some friends, I learnt that the "agreed
> upon" (supposedly this was said by Elliott) solution for this was to use
> rsh to connect to the remote system and then start an oafd on that
> machine. I really think this solution is not very good.
> 
> So, what about having a second oaf daemon, integrated in inetd, which
> listens to a pre-established port for remote oaf's?
> I don't know too much what would be involved in the communication
> between the remote oaf's, but I suppose the work to do it would be the
> same in the rsh-case than in the inetd-service case

I'll try to write up some thoughts about remote activation. I'm not
sure if the inetd approach will work because oafd is per-user. I think
if you did the rsh-type approach, only with ssh, the result might be
almost reasonable.

I don't think I've run into a real case where transparent remote
activation is that important yet, though.

Regards,

Maciej