Pete, This new text sounds fine. However, there is a small typo: resuse instead of reuse: > Each time an object's life cycle > ended, its number would be saved into a resuse pool.
On 21/02/2009 4:05 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: > Jamie, We've dropped the idea of deprecating IA2::windowHandle. It's > used by NVDA and at least one other AT. > > Xing told me Symphony uses a variation of what is in the spec, i.e. > iterating a number from 1 coupled with the use of a resuse pool, so its > uniqueID is unique within the app. > > Based on all the input please review the following changes to the > current text found at: > http://accessibility.freestandards.org/a11yspecs/ia2/docs/html/interface_i_accessible2.html#ac1342376cf195a6a6e9ee3b7e30ae3b > > Change one word in the first paragraph from: > > The uniqueID is an identifier for this object, is unique within the > current window, and remains the same for the lifetime of the accessible > object. > > to: > > The uniqueID is an identifier for this object, is unique within the > current application, and remains the same for the lifetime of the > accessible object. > > and change the last paragraph from: > > One means of implementing this would be to create a factory with a 32 > bit number generator and a reuse pool. The number generator would emit > numbers starting at 1. Each time an object's life cycle ended, its > number would be saved into a resuse pool. The number generator would be > used whenever the reuse pool was empty. > > to these three paragraphs: > > One means of implementing this would be to create a factory with a 32 > bit number generator and a reuse pool. The number generator would emit > numbers starting at 1. Each time an object's life cycle ended, its > number would be saved into a resuse pool. The number generator would be > used whenever the reuse pool was empty. > > Another means is to use the pointer of the accessible. > > Since some ATs need uniqueness within the machine, not just within the > application, they use a combination of windowHandle and uniqueID. > > Pete > ===== > > James Teh wrote: >> On 20/02/2009 2:26 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: >> >>> 2) NVDA needs uniqueness in the machine. >>> >> Correct. Note that using a windowHandle and uniqueID pair is fine - >> that's what we do now. >> >> >>> My original understanding was that the number would be unique within an >>> application. I provided the following in the spec, but you can see this >>> will not work to define uniqueness within the machine. >>> >> Uniqueness in the application is not really good enough, as there's no >> unique application ID. Even given a way to uniquely identify an >> application, windowHandle is still faster; it is one call. >> >> Btw, to clarify: I assume the idea of deprecating windowHandle is no >> longer under consideration? We would be strongly opposed to this. >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Accessibility-ia2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 -- James Teh Email/MSN Messenger/Jabber: [email protected] Web site: http://www.jantrid.net/ _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
