Re: [g-a-devel] [Kde-accessibility] [Accessibility] Re: [Accessibility-atspi] D-Bus AT-SPI - The way forward

[Rob Taylor <rob taylor codethink co uk>]

Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 21:57 +0000, Rob Taylor wrote:
>> Supporting com.sun.java.accessibility shouldn't be hard, but we really
>> need with some input from people who understand how accessibility is
>> exposed by AWT/SWT/Swing..
> 
> 	Surely there should not be a per-toolkit wrt. simply bridging to a
> different IPC mechanism. And indeed, the plus for Java of course would
> be that it should be faster than using TCP sockets, more secure, and (of
> course) will work on stock Linux systems (that disable IPv4/6 sockets).

I think I could definitly do with a bit more of a background on how java
toolkits expose themselves. Could you quickly go though what components
do which bits and how corba currently ties in?

>>> I'm a bit confused by the slowdown, though.  I thought that programs
>>> that use UNIX sockets to connect to the ORBit2 server will continue to
>>> do so even when TCP/IP is enabled.  My understanding was that enabling
>>> TCP/IP with ORBit2 just made it possible for programs that want to use
>>> TCP/IP to also be able to connect to the ORBit2 server (such as Java
>>> programs).
>> Well, the slowdown occurs when you disable local sockets, so no suprise
>> there :)
> 
> 	I'd also expect a (small) slowdown just enabling IPv4 sockets, whether
> they are used or not (and they're not preferred clearly), since in
> itself that ~doubles the size of each object profile we marshal.

Actually we did seem see that, but it was small enough a difference  (~
5%) that it could have been noise.

Rob
> 	HTH,
> 
> 		Michael.
> 


-- 
Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. -  http://codethink.co.uk