Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

["Dirk-Jan C. Binnema" <bulkmail dds nl>]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Jeske <jeske@home.chat.net>
To: gnome-list@gnome.org <gnome-list@gnome.org>
Date: vrijdag 7 augustus 1998 21:09
Subject: Re: GNOME & KOM/OP


>The philosophy of COM (IMO) is quite good, and as you say, the
>implementation on windows is quite bad. They recognized some key
>traits which make COM able to gracefully handle compatibility and
>backward compatibility.



Somehow, suddenly, MS-stuff has become _cool_ among Linuxians/Gnomes ;-)
This is a good thing, we should take *good* ideas from whomever came
up with them.

I don't think we can be really specific about GOLE2 before some
people put their thoughts in specs. However, I'd like to make one
more point about the differences between OLE2 and Corba.

One of the good things about COM/DCOM is the fact you can quite
easily turn your local COM component into a distributed DCOM component.
I think this is important stuff. You wouldn't want to rewrite your
GNOLE2 components into Corba/IIOP, just to be able to use the in a
distributed
fashion. There shouldn't be to much of a difference between local and remote
components, just like XWindows...

So, while using ideas from OLE can be good, IMHO the APIs/object models
for remote and local components (objects) should be very similar.

Remember that this is one of the very rare occasions one can actually define
a component model for a (potentially) very large audience. Lets make sure we
make the right decisions.

Cheers,
Dirk-Jan C. Binnema