Kameda-san,
Daisuke Kameda wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you know this, if I add explanation, our idea differ from
>> "bridge" model. We intend to introduce the new low level
>> component/protocol model, and introduce "protocol converter"
>> (nearly equal "bridge") for mutual converting the new model
>> and existing technologies
>
> What do you think better solution for realizing interoperability?
if I wanted to achieve interoperability between e.g. Uno and D-Bus, I
would at first implement a bridge between these two, than I would look
at the used "interfaces" and would try to identify semantically
equivalent ones and would implement "adapters" between any pair of
interfaces needed, likely in one of the Uno supported languages, e.g. C
or C++.
>
>
>>> Unfortunately there is not only a lack of an "interoperable ABI" (the
>>> mediator between the programs component models), but also a lack of
>>> "shared" interfaces. It is quite unlikely, that you find any
>>> reasonableUno object in OOo which may be syntactically compatible
>>> (has a compatible interface) to be passed e.g. to an XPCOM object,
>>> and even if there is a syntactically compatible one, than it is likely
>>> semantically incompatible.
>> We intend to introduce abstract components as "shared" interface.
>> I think that it is the best solution, now.
>
> I think that it is possible to define "share" interface like ODF.
> Do you think that it is possible?
I fear the scope of something like ODF is to narrow, you likely also
want to "map" more basic types/interfaces, such as "Input/OutputStream",
"HashMap" etc.
>
>
>>> This does not mean, that the interoperability problem is unsolvable,
>>> it is "just" a huge amount of work.
>> Yes. It is very, very huge work.
>> But, I think that it is necessary for opensource desktop.
>
> I think that it is better to practice these "a huge amount of work"
> in Potland project.
I doubt that the Portland project is stuffed for such a project.
>
> If you agree that these works is necessary, what do you think to
> perform it better?
>
The perfect solution would harmonize the requested projects, though
theoretically possible, this is unlikely to happen (I did some brief
investigations into this some years ago :-). One more reasonable
approach seems to be, to select one component model and to add adapters
as needed.
Regards
Kay
--
Sun Microsystems GmbH Kay Ramme
Sachsenfeld 4 Senior Technical Architect
20097 Hamburg Phone: (+49 40) 23646 982
Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23646 550
http://www.sun.com/staroffice mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sun.com/openoffice
http://udk.openoffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
_______________________________________________
Desktop_architects mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
