Michael Ang wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>>> I have a simple question about IDL files. It seems that all throughout
>>> the mozilla source, IDL files contain CIDs, ContractIDs, and often
>>> factory methods in %{C++ %} blocks. These things correspond to a
>>> particular implementation of the interface (or, in the case of
>>> ContractIDs, to a particular class of implementations), right?
>>
>
> I think that putting the ContractID in the IDL file is a worthwhile
> practice. (In the absence of a more capable Component Description
> Language.) This makes it possible for component clients to instantiate
> a component without having to search through C++ files.
>
> There will of course be cases where multiple ContractIDs return a
> component which implements a given interface, but in many cases today
> there is only implementation of a given interface. So listing a
> "default" ContractID will be more helpful than not most of the time.
> But maybe I'm missing some long term consequences...
>
> - Mike.
This sounds fine to me. I assume for each interface we would
just list a generic ContractID... that would correspond to
some default implementation of the interface. In fact, specific
implementation may choose to specialize this ContractID.
Currently, we declare ContractID's in %{C++ %} blocks even
though the ContractID applies to all languages. This isn't
great, but then it probably doesn't really matter, right?
Darin
