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]>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.