Re: RFP: CompoundStorage document

[Mikael Hallendal <micke codefactory se>]

ons 2002-04-10 klockan 17.55 skrev Dom Lachowicz:
> Hi Dietmar,
> 
> I believe that Bonobo is either the wrong way to solve this problem or 
> solves this problem on a different level than I'd like to see it solved at. 
> In my mind, these are functionally equivalent statements ;-)
> 
> What I'm looking for is a lower-level class heirarchy that Bonobo can build 
> on top of, if it so chooses. You could create monikers for these different 
> proposed storage classes. If you've already taken the time to map the Bonobo 
> storage interface on top of disparate libraries (libefs and libole2), why 
> not take the time to map the Bonobo storage inteface back on top of my 
> proposed unified class(es)? The mapping from my proposed class to the Bonobo 
> storage interface would seem to be fairly straightforward. It also seems to 
> me that the interfaces could be practically identical and that we could grab 
> the existing OLE2 and EFS code and push it upward into my proposed class. 
> This way our classes and libraries are available to more people and 
> platforms and still wholly & easily accessible to Bonobo. This inclusionary 
> RFP seems to make sense, at least to me. You are, of course, free to 
> disagree.

Hi!

I agree that we should have something in a layer below Bonobo so that
you can access it without having to go through the extra layer of
Bonobo. This way more people will use it which is what we want. If we
then add a bonobo-way to access this that is just for the better, that
way it can be used by applications that for one or another reason needs
this.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 
Mikael Hallendal                micke codefactory se
CodeFactory AB                  http://www.codefactory.se/
Office: +46 (0)8 587 583 05     Cell: +46 (0)709 718 918