Re: GEP 9: merging bonobo-activation & libbonobo
"Gustavo J. A. M. " Carneiro <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.desktop,gmane.comp.gnome.components |
|---|---|
| Organization | INESC Porto |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Qui, 2003-03-13 at 19:25, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 23:49, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote: > > On Qua, 2003-03-12 at 20:35, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > > FWIW, the GObject adaptor would provide a solution to the "I want to > > > use BonoboObject part". Granted its not finished, but I'm willing to do > > > the last bit of work required ... > > > > Can you tell me what this "GObject adaptor" is? I don't have a > > clue... > > Its like the "make it wasy to implement CORBA interfaces with a > GObject" part of BonoboObject ... but in ORBit2. See: > > http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-5.html Thanks for the clarification. Now I vaguely remember reading about this. I just didn't recognize the name. BTW, regarding GEP 5, I don't agree that POAManager states aren't useful. Just because something isn't widely used doesn't mean it is not useful. Maybe developers just don't it is there. I think that siwtching between the 'holding' and 'active' states can be very useful to keep reentrancy under the developer's control. Back to the subject, you could have a valid argument indeed, or maybe not. Does GObject adaptor provide implementation inheritance, like BonoboObject? If so, maybe we can implement BonoboObject in bonobo-activation instead of libbonobo. If not, it's still best to merge, because having to implement BonoboObject twice is not a good solution. Regards. -- Gustavo João Alves Marques Carneiro <[email protected]> <[email protected]>