Re: [g-a-devel]Implementing support for state sets in at-spi

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> Hello Bill,

>         Fascinating; tell me how you expect to compare a local and a remote
> StateSet ? and the sequence of round trip CORBA method latencies.
...

>         My feeling is we can have horribly inefficiency or IDL changes, and I'd
> plonk for the latter - it all depends how much we need to use StateSets
> really.

The intention was for these operations to be opaque.  I agree that we
need some
kind of data marshalling but my intention was never to expose it; one
reason has
to do with language bindings, another was the desire not to expose
implementation-dependent
marshalling/demarshalling code.

That said, the implementation code for compare and isEqual would like
*some*
way to do its work efficiently, without having to call 'contains'
multiple times.  Do we have a convention for doing this, i.e. for
"private"
IDL methods?  That's what we'd want here I think.

We could have Accessibility_StateSet implement some OpaqueAny thingy
kind of
interface which user code would expressly not be able to do anything
useful with, but perhaps we can just add a getPackedData method to
StateSet, with the proviso that user code shouldn't muck with it?

Regards,

Bill

>         Regards,
> 
>                 Michael.
> 
> --
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot