[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    RE: back to corba (was RE: Transparency -- take 2)
From:       Simon Hausmann <shaus () uermel ! Med ! Uni-Magdeburg ! DE>
Date:       1999-09-30 7:05:06
[Download RAW message or body]



On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Dirk A. Mueller wrote:

> Lars Knoll <Lars.Knoll@mpi-hd.mpg.de> wrote:
> 
> > On the other hand, if we want to keep open standards (which I would
> > very much like too see), we have to define these things in idl and use
> > CORBA. I don't really see an alternative to that. I would very much
> > favor an open approach.
> 
> Well, then we need to hack mico (or whatever ORB we're going to use)
> and make it load the part as a shared lib if it is local and don't do
> that (de-)marshalling stuff all the time.

This is quite Matthias's proposal, but it absolutely doesn't help to solve
issues like the KOffice Printing Extension or the kdeui duplication of
OpenPartsUI, IMHO.

We can define a lot of things in IDL, but we will never be able to pass a
QPainter through the ORB (which you need for the KoPrintExt for example) 
...

> I strongly vote for that option. We CANNOT DROP CORBA! We must make it
> faster and more reliable, even if that means switching to a different
> ORB.

Noone is talking about dropping CORBA completely. IMHO it is a good thing
when applications provide smart CORBA interfaces for things like
scripting. However for embedding IMHO we don't need CORBA.
 

Ciao,
Simon

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]