Re: Scripting in Gnome

jamie wrote:

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:00, Bill Haneman wrote:
jamie wrote:...

Because Bonobo is equivalent in functionality to COM, I was kinda hoping
a future version of Bonobo would be independent of corba or whatever
underlying mechanism is used so you could use whatever system works best
(obviously everyone will use the fastest and most efficient method
whilst keeping Corba for backwards compatibility). I think there's an
overwhelming case for replacing corba IDL with XML in bonobo if thats
done (XSLT for automatic language bindings would be very handy).

No no no please; the IDL should be the 'normative' definition for interfaces. That's what it was invented for; the fact that we are using "CORBA IDL" is less significant than the fact we're using IDL. The IDL can be compiled to various backends, it doesn't have to be compiled to CORBA stubs/skels.

I was thinking along the lines of having XML as the high level
definition. That could then be translated via XSLT to IDL if you needed
it. I'm not saying scrap corba completely cause we do need it for
backwards comatibility. If you look at the way MS is heading - its
effectively using xml and web services to replace IDL in .Net

That doesn't make it a good idea ;-)

Making the XML the 'high level' definition stands the whole business on its head. IDL was designed to express interfaces, XML is a very poor fit for this. The fact that it would junk existing GNOME service definitions is the real stopper though, IMO.

Also - XSLT is powerful, but not all-powerful. Some things are very hard to express via XSLT transformations. Lastly, IDL is very human readable, which XML is most certainly not (at least, nontrivial XML interface definitions are not!).

- Bill


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]