Re: BonoboPreview initiative

On 09Dec2001 04:59PM (+0100), Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Sun, 2001-12-09 at 16:22, ERDI Gergo wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 2001, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > 
> > > it makes more sense IMO, for more general cases, to have a
> > > PreviewControl interface, as Dirk said, and just do:
> > 
> > what would be the difference between Bonobo::Control and
> > Bonobo::PreviewControl?
> > 
> hmm, don't know, maybe just a few accessibility additions to
> Bonobo/Control, as Bill said.
> But I think using the Bonobo/PreviewControl in the bonobo_get_object
> call can be at least used to clearly specify that what you want is a
> preview control, and not a normal control. Thus, the moniker
> implementation can choose on how to generate the returned interface (a
> zoomed thumbnail, a summary of the document, etc).

The temptation to define new IDL interfaces just so you can use them
in bonobo_object_get points to a missing capability in monikers as
currently used in GNOME. You can only get an object based on one IDL
interface it provides. You can't request a single object that has more
than one interface, or request objects based on additional

It would be nice if you could have many Bonobo/Controls that handle
the same MIME type, but specialized for different situations. One for
embeddability as a full-size editing-capable view, one for use as a
small preview, one for use as a full-size preview, etc.

And in this case, you want applications to be able to choose the right
one based on attributes besides just a single IDL interface.

Maybe we can look into enhancing the moniker interface to allow
applications to specify more than one required interface, and more
general attribute requirements.



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