Re: [Corelinux-develop] Caution

[Christophe Prud'h. <pru...@MI...>]

    Frank> In a brief ping, Christophe mentioned the KDE-2 mini-declaration idl capability.
a really brief one
I am very busy these days

    Frank> The actual ExecutionObjects and respective definitions is in the solution space of the
    Frank> application domain. It is up to "them" to define what a ExecutionObjectDefinition IS,
    Frank> what it contains, and so on. It is impossible for us to do that for them, after all we
    Frank> don't know which libraries they will be using. Of course I will be providing an example
    Frank> that leverages the framework, but I won't be needing a parser or grammar for that.
yes

    Frank> Now, when we (CoreLinux++) publish OUR frameworks, it is extremely likely that we will
    Frank> make heavy use of the Library Load mini-framework to facilitate the component
    Frank> architecture. At this point, a parser for definition interchange is a likely
    Frank> requirement. And IDL is clearly a very suitable fit specifically for
    Frank> ExecutionObjectDefinitions, but just as clearly useless in any other type library
    Frank> (images, etc.).
I agree on that.
I guess that you will not use the idl from CORBA but rather a smaller subset and specifically
designed for the frameworks. If so I would like to work on that.

Otherwise, IMO, the LibraryType should be a class type as you mentioned in an earlier mail.

as for the loader you specify 1..*, is it wise to be able to have multiple loader instances?
shouldn't we use the singleton pattern to ensure uniqueness of the instance and make sure that libs
are loaded once while keeping track of what is loaded?
I don't know if it makes sense or not?

regards and good night
C.