Re: Towards better OAF/Bonobo integration

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 30Jul2001 03:43AM (-0400), Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> > * OAF would be renamed to bonobo-base to recognize it's role as part
> > of the Bonobo component model.
> 
>         I'm not sure that this is realy neeccesary - but if you wish. I'm
> only concerned that pressuere will be brought to bear to move stuff
> wholesale into 'bonobo-base', and I'd like assurance that this will be
> resisted wholesale - at least until such time as we could contemplate
> merging fully more sensibly.
> 

I have no desire anything further merged into oaf / bonobo-base /
whatever. I want it to have the minimal stuff needed to do it's
job. If anything, there is a bunch of code that needs to be removed.

I can rename the module bonobo-activation, rename it something else
generic, or not rename it at all. It's not a big deal to me.

> > * I'm not certain about this, but perhaps OAF interfaces that pass
> > around CORBA_Object's could be changed to pass Bonobo_Unknown's. I'm
> > not sure what level of breakage vs. benefit this would cause just yet.
> 
>         This is not quite so critical, certainly in C - the type safety is
> a complete joke - and either way, we have a CORBA_Object factory currently
> anyway. So let's just stick with Object.
  
Works for me.

> > * Longer-term, OAF would provide a public CORBA interface to querying
> > and activation in addition to the current C API (and perhaps someday  
> > the C API might be deprecated, who knows).
> 
>         This is great.
> 
>         For pragmatic reasons, I have another request - that the ORBit2
> typelibrary for the Bonobo/ namespace should be installed from bonobo:
> which requires no real hackery really - just a note.

OK. I have no idea what this means or how to do it. I hope you can
help me get this part right.

Regards,

Maciej