Re: Bonobo Unique Application v3.1

"Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnome.components
Organization INESC Porto
Message-ID <[email protected]>
A Ter, 2003-04-22 às 10:26, Michael Meeks escreveu:

> 	I'd also like to get most of the nice signal stuff into CVS in a more
> generic form as well, which looks like it could be generally useful. I
> was envisaging that the 'getMessages' thing would return a
> sequence<SignalDescription>:
> 
> struct SignalDescription {
> 	string name;
> 	Any    retval;
> 	Any    params;
> 	long   flags;
> };
> 
> 	And that we could build this out of: g_signal_list_ids, and a
> g_signal_query on the remove GObject; this would then allow us to
> introspet / invoke arbitrary signals on remote objects - which would be
> a very nice feature - which we could then re-use inside libbonobo. Would
> you be interested in splitting that functionality out into a
> 'BonoboSignalServer/BonoboSignalClient' object pair ? [ as a future
> extension, we could (most likely) hook things up so we could
> g_signal_emit on the client without a special method [ your argv /
> collection thing looks great for now ], and it would 'just work' ;-].

  Just so I understand your idea, BonoboSignalServer would replace
BonoboApplication and BonoboSignalClient would replace BonoboAppClient?

  I get the impression that with your approach the message sending
interface would get more complicated.  You would have to register 
signals for each message type you want to send, and g_signal_new is not
trivial, plus you need to generate C marshallers, which implies adding
stuff to the makefile, etc., and people seem to not like this sort of
thing very much.  g_signal_emit is not elegant either.  Are you sure
this signal stuff is recommended?  The existing API is more
programmer-friendly, IMHO.  I think people want a more runtime oriented
and simple message API.  For real typesafe and elegant message passing,
we already have CORBA. :)

> 
> 	How does that sound ? either way, we should get as much as we can of
> what you've done in now I think.

  Sounds good (except for my worries regarding increased API
complexity), but I need to understant it first! :)

  Bye.
-- 
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.