Re: RFP: CompoundStorage document

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 18:04, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> 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.
> 
in that case, I believe libefs/libole2 can do that. And, if there's
something missing, we can extend the already existing code.

cheers
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> - <rodrigo ximian com>
http://www.gnome-db.org/ - http://www.ximian.com/