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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Common server activation
From:       Havoc Pennington <rhp () zirx ! pair ! com>
Date:       1999-06-26 17:03:01
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> 
> Well, I don't see a better way now. But I might be wrong.
> 
> I agree that it would be nice to have a common standard for the actual
> activation of a CORBA services, but I fear it's (at least currently)
> impossible.
> 
> The problem I see is that the two approaches are very different:
>

Can you suggest a third approach - perhaps one that takes the best from
each? For now, each desktop will continue to use its own approach; in the
future, we can gradually transition. I think you're right that each
approach uses ORB-specific stuff. However, we can perhaps convince Elliot
to add stuff to ORBit if that's needed, to match a MICO feature or
whatever.

I know everyone is attached to the approach they designed, but we *really*
need a solution here. It isn't just for interoperability; it's also so we
can migrate CORBA out of the desktops and down into the more core features
of the operating system.

> But perhaps I didn't read the GNOME code carefully enought, so I might be
> wrong.
>

I all sounded good to me, but it also sounds like you've read more of the
libgnorba code than I have. Which is a very good thing. I'm glad someone
is reading code from both projects.
 
> Well, I implemented the KDE naming service. In fact it's a very simple
> thing, just like COSNaming, but with the major difference that it doesn't
> support sub-contexts. It's just a simple map, mapping names to objects and
> vice-versa.
> The reason why I did this is that I thought (and still think in somehow) 
> that we don't really need the full-fledged COS Naming Service. It surely
> provides nice features, but I doubt that they will be really necessary,
> given the fact that it's still bigger (in memory/code) than a simple
> self-made naming service.
> And IMHO it's worth to save resources since the feature of sub-contexts
> can IMHO be solved simply by using "hierachical names" for objects. 

That sounds reasonable. However, I think getting an interoperable solution
is more important than saving resources *or* the extra features of the COS
Naming Service. Saving a bit of RAM and avoiding namespace clutter are
both small, programmer-visible-only problems. With a common,
GUI-independent standard we add significant user-visible functionality
(and significant functionality for developers that aren't working directly
on Gnome and KDE, say the CUPS people who might want to give us a nice
interface for chatting with the printer).

So, I would encourage us to avoid getting bogged down in the precise
technical details; while they are important, the most important thing is
to have something that works and that everyone can at least grudgingly
accept. i.e. if a technical argument isn't getting resolved, at some point
we need to just flip a coin, or say "whoever implements it decides."

OK, clearly I am not the person who needs to be talking. I am shamelessly
spamming the Gnome CORBA people, and I hope they will speak up. :-) Is it
feasible to have a common object activation standard? What problems exist?
How can we adress them? 

Thanks,
Havoc

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