From kde-core-devel  Tue Jul 20 13:20:35 1999
From: Simon Hausmann <tronical () gmx ! net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:20:35 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: kded
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=93247607021434

Hello.

The promised recovery mechanism for kded works now, but there are two
problems:

1) It works only for me, because I reverted the KProcess patch from last
   week (as discussed on irc) . Anyone able to fix the fix? Or should we
   completely revert it?

2) The recover stuff makes things (kded code) look *really* ugly :-(
   I have to query for the service corba objects (KDED::Trader, ...) upon
   *every* invokation. This looks ugly and is also slow.

   The reason for this is that I can't release a proxy of a dead remote
   object.
  
   code like 
   
     m_vTrader = KDED::Trader::_duplicate( the_trader_of_the_new_kded )

   simply crashed somehwere in mico. I have no clue why.

   So I had to remove this member variable and query for it every time :-(

Result: It works, but it's ugly. And we have to solve the KProcess thing
first before I can commit.



So in somehow I get the impression that CORBA for IPC between
client<->kded-server is a bad thing. See the CORBA interfaces of the
Trader/Activator of kded and you know why: It's simply ugly IMHO.
And in somehow I feel like we misuse CORBA.

I wonder whether we should consider switching to plain socket
communication or shared memory (difficult) ? It's faster and perhaps
creates less trouble to recover from a crash.

The client interface would not be touched in any way, so we stay source
(perhaps even binary) compatible.

And: We would not loose any functionality, except that kded's services
can't be used via CORBA anymore, but the c++ interface are much better
IMHO anyway :-))

Opinions?


Ciao,
 Simon