Re: heads up on 84897 and dependencies

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Bill,

On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 09:29, Bill Haneman wrote:
> After some soul-searching, I think we should remove the oneway

	This is notably binary compatible, indeed it removes but 1 flag from
the -common.c file. Having studied it in some considerable depth, there
is no option but to do this.

	This also, potentially has ramifications due to adding uncontrolled
re-enterancy during various events which at-spi proxies on via the wire.
So potentially we'd need to add a push/pop re-enterancy method to ORBit2
- potentially as well.

> Since we should then remove the ref() and the requirement
> for the called server to unref() after servicing the call, this will
> require changes to apps using our API (currently only apps under our
> direct control, and GOK and gnopernicus).

	What ? there is no problem with the ref/unref - and that should have no
API or other problems associated - I don't understand what that's all
about.

>  However this means that. despite bincompatibility, if we do this we
> should do it at 2.0.0 (i.e. *now*) and not 2.0.1.

	I totally disagree. I don't believe it's at all necessary to delay the
release for this.

> A small worry; we padded our IDL with extra epv calls for expansion, but
> forgot to pad the EventListener IDL, which is the one that needs
> changing.  So if we might someday want to restore a notifyAsync() call
> or something, we should pad the IDL now too.

	Again; no need for that, it's quite possible (indeed fairly trivial) to
invoke synchronous calls asynchronously, so that should be no problem.
Indeed, quite the opposite over-reliance on oneway is a nasty problem.

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks@gnu.org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot