Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

["Dirk-Jan C. Binnema" <bulkmail dds nl>]

>
>> Is there already something for us to read, explaining what 'correctly'
>> means in this context?
>
>Well, yes.  You can start reading the KOM/OpenParts code, and then
>read a book on Active-X, OLE2 and COM.
>
>Miguel.

As I understand, Gnome uses Corba (Orbit) as its component model -- so why
mess with COM in the first place?

    (1)Are you trying to  build COM ("GOM"? ;-) _on top_ of Corba? What
would be the benifit over *just* using Corba?

    (2) Or are you positioning GOM _next to_ Corba/Orbit,  Orbit vs GOM
resembling COM vs DCOM (Orbit for remote stuff)?
    That would be a programming nightmare, having to component model working
next to each other.

So, I guess you mean option (1), GOM on top of Corba, this would still give
"philosophic" problems combining the COM & Corba models. So maybe it would
be better to take the already lightweight Orbit Corba implementation, and
define a subset optimized for local communications (like COM), that allows
local component communications to be even thinner.

If you really want to reimplement COM, please do avoid some of the MS
mistakes (you know, the inheritance vs aggregation stuff etc.). See
http://www.relisoft.com/win32/olerant.html for some more details.

Good luck!

Dirk-Jan C. Binnema.