|
From: Frank V. C. <fr...@co...> - 2000-08-05 02:52:40
|
In a brief ping, Christophe mentioned the KDE-2 mini-declaration idl capability. I would like to put a flag of caution up for a second to consider a few things in regards to the Library Loader. The libcorelinux (libcl++.so) should contain: 1. The mimimal framework component abstractions (currently the Library Load design) 2. Some level of behavior that will be common across all possible domain specializations. 3. A first level derivation of the abstraction to types for dynamic shared function libraries, with the exception of defining actual ExecutionObjectDefinitions. But realize that: The actual ExecutionObjects and respective definitions is in the solution space of the application domain. It is up to "them" to define what a ExecutionObjectDefinition IS, what it contains, and so on. It is impossible for us to do that for them, after all we don't know which libraries they will be using. Of course I will be providing an example that leverages the framework, but I won't be needing a parser or grammar for that. Now, when we (CoreLinux++) publish OUR frameworks, it is extremely likely that we will make heavy use of the Library Load mini-framework to facilitate the component architecture. At this point, a parser for definition interchange is a likely requirement. And IDL is clearly a very suitable fit specifically for ExecutionObjectDefinitions, but just as clearly useless in any other type library (images, etc.). Thoughts? Anyone? -- Frank V. Castellucci |