Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

[Phil Dawes <philipd parallax co uk>]

Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Phil Dawes wrote:
> 
> > The books I have read on COM have had nothing bad to say about it,
> > but then they haven't been comparing it with other established systems.
> > There *are* flaws in COM, however there are also workarounds and these
> (...)
> 
> Can we _PLEASE_ stop referring to COM here?  Miguel has (I think) made
> it clear that COM will not be used anywhere in GNOME.  It's going to
> be an OLE-like model over CORBA.  No COM to be found.
> 
> OLE is not COM.  If you mean OLE, then say OLE, not COM!
> 
> I'm not knowledgeable enough to particpate in the larger debate, but
> _PLEASE_ stop implying that the forthcoming component model is in any
> way COM-based.  It make my ears hurt!  Elliot et al. wrote ORBit for a
> reason, darn it!
> 

Sorry - I was using the problems with COM as an example of how books
often tell you about a new technology without attempting to subjectively
identify its flaws.

I agree with you about COM - I am an ORBit developer (...well I've
submitted code anyway ;-) In fact I don't think we should be
*explicitly* saying OLE at this stage either (but then I don't know much
about OLE - it could be the best possible system ever for all I know).


Cheers,

Phil.


-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
 Phil Dawes                               |   My opinions are my own
 WWW:    err.. temporarily non-existant   |   and nothing to do with
 Email:  philipd@parallax.co.uk           |      my employer.