Re: Scripting in Gnome

Exactly. This was what I was talking about when I suggested making
GObject's self describing. a GObject could then be introspected by
CORBA, DBus, Python, Whatever to allow the scripting functionality
easily. I think GObject's properties are self describing currently but
methods are not. Anyone know what else would need to be described to
make this possible?

On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 19:57, James Henstridge wrote:
> On 5/02/2004 11:06 AM, jamie wrote:
> > Sounds very promising. The examples were interesting because thats the
> >
> >kind of stuff im interested in too. I was thinking more on the way VBA
> >does things - It has application specific objects which provide a nice
> >clean object interface to scriptable stuff in an application so i would
> >want to replicate that and also allow a macro to interact with other
> >apps in the same way ( the object interface would of course hideaway the
> >bonobo calls and other glue that AT-SPI uses). Its good stuff - strange
> >that it was hidden away, you should definitely talk it up a bit more...
> >  
> >
> What you mention here is not a feature of VBA.  Instead, the feature is 
> that pretty much every non-trivial Windows app exposes APIs via the same 
> scripting interface (COM).  VBA (and Jscript and Python and Perl and 
> ...) have a binding for this scripting interface, which essentially 
> gives them the ability to script these applications for free.  This is 
> possible because COM provides an introspection interface, so the VBA 
> interpreter can find out what methods exist on an object, and how to 
> invoke them.
> If the majority of apps on the Gnome desktop exposed their object model 
> via CORBA, then a CORBA binding for a scripting language would give 
> similar benefits to VBA's COM glue code (and if most apps exposed the 
> document model via dbus or dcop, then a dbus or dcop binding would 
> provide those benefits).
> Following on from this, you can probably see that choosing a language is 
> a very small part of making "Scripting in Gnome" work.  The hard part is 
> getting all the applications to support it.
> For the Linux desktop, this is particularly hard because it isn't clear 
> which scripting interface should be used.
>     * For Gnome, the answer would probably have been CORBA a few years
>       back (this is less clear cut these days).
>     * For KDE, the obvious answer is DCOP.
>     * For Mozilla, components are exposed in process to Javascript via
>       XPConnect.  They don't have an out of process interface.
>     * I think OpenOffice also has something similar to Bonobo or XPConnect
> The language support for each of these different solutions is different, 
> so a developer's choice of interface will affect who can actually use 
> it. Maybe in the future dbus will fill the role of "the scripting 
> interface for the linux desktop", but it isn't quite ready for prime 
> time yet (as far as I know).
> James.
Bob Smith <bob thestuff net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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