Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] memory management
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2001 - 18:14:26 EET
In message <20011126144547.D9878_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk>you write:
>On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 12:50:00AM -0800, Josh Green wrote:
>>
>> I agree completely. But what we do need is a way to easily embed an
>> editor with other audio type programs, such as Smurf :) Are we still of
>> the opinion that this is not possible or worth while?
>
>Based on some mighmarish memories of the last time I did any Windows
>programming, isn't that what OLE (now COM+?) is supposed to do, and isn't
>Bonobo supposed to be the linux equivalent? I'm sure KDE has something
>similar too.
i think this way lies madness, or at least possible foolishness.
OLE/COM/CORBA/Bonobo are essentially about allowing dissimilar objects
to communicate in a structured way, including allowing the embedding
of "views" of an object within another "view". the "dissimilar" here
is key: we're talking about embedding, say, a spreadsheet view of some
data inside a text processor and its document.
but what josh has described above is about allowing essentially
*similar* objects to be embedded, and thats much more problematic. you
now have at least different controllers (and views) potentially
operating on the same data. this means that there has to be, as
Richard implicitly pointed out, some agreed upon definition of either
the internal data representation and/or some IDL defining legal
operations on the object and a way of being notified of changes to
it.if you take the IDL route (i.e. the OLE/COM/CORBA/Bonobo route),
then why bother to embed another chunk of code, when the operations
are already defined? all you gain is some view code, and thats
normally not very hard to do, especially in comparison to connecting
audio program 1 to audio program 2 via OLE/COME/CORBA/Bonobo.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 18:11:10 EET