Re: [Corelinux-develop] Caution

[Frank V. C. <fr...@co...>]

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

:)

> [snip]
> 
>     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.

It may be good to consider a RDF, but we can start a thread on
frameworks as well to nail this down.

> 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?

Actually the cardinality is 0..*, because I am allowed to have many
loaders concurrently active in the system. I might have a shared
function library loader, an image loader, a RDBMS loader, and a CORBA
loader active all at once. So the base Loader should NOT be a singleton
as it won't allow that many instantiations. 

-- 
Frank V. Castellucci