pythoncard-users

[Pythoncard-users] component object model

[Steven D. A. <st...@ne...>]

Hi all,

Has any thought been given to a possible object component model?  It
seems we'd want to use one that was non-proprietary and open-source.
The KOM/Kparts model seems nice, from what I've read.  The only thing
I might object to is, if it used Qt and that couldn't be easily
removed, I wouldn't want to get into a situation where one couldn't
build a PythonCard app without paying TrollTech.

Another option is the GNOME object model.  I don't know much about
that, other than that it exists.

Picking either of these would provide the added advantage of
compatibility with other software using that model....

Comments?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven D. Arnold                                  st...@ne...
AIM: abraxan                                               ICQ: 73804392
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: [Pythoncard-users] component object model

[Ron J. <ron...@ho...>]

On Monday 03 September 2001 10:41 pm, Steven D. Arnold wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Has any thought been given to a possible object component model?  It
[snip]
> Picking either of these would provide the added advantage of
> compatibility with other software using that model....
>
> Comments?

But it would reduce (nay, eliminate) portability.

--=20
Mon Sep  3 22:43:49 2001
Seq.  Timestamp                    Uptime
----  ------------------------    ------------
 1: Mon Jul 16 16:28:17 2001  -  43 07:21:59 - 2.4.6-3mdk
 2: Thu May 17 01:44:04 2001  -  35 15:31:51 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 3: Thu Jun 21 17:33:18 2001  -  10 05:29:02 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 4: Sun Jul  1 23:03:05 2001  -   7 10:13:18 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 5: Wed Jul 11 15:11:11 2001  -   5 01:16:26 - 2.4.6-3mdk
12: Mon Sep  3 21:34:47 2001  -   0 01:09:02 - 2.4.9 <<--

RE: [Pythoncard-users] component object model

[Kevin A. <al...@se...>]

> From: Ron Johnson
> 
> On Monday 03 September 2001 10:41 pm, Steven D. Arnold wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Has any thought been given to a possible object component model?  It
> [snip]
> > Picking either of these would provide the added advantage of
> > compatibility with other software using that model....
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> But it would reduce (nay, eliminate) portability.
> 
> -- 
> Mon Sep  3 22:43:49 2001
> Seq.  Timestamp                    Uptime
> ----  ------------------------    ------------
>  1: Mon Jul 16 16:28:17 2001  -  43 07:21:59 - 2.4.6-3mdk
>  2: Thu May 17 01:44:04 2001  -  35 15:31:51 - 2.4.3-20mdk
>  3: Thu Jun 21 17:33:18 2001  -  10 05:29:02 - 2.4.3-20mdk
>  4: Sun Jul  1 23:03:05 2001  -   7 10:13:18 - 2.4.3-20mdk
>  5: Wed Jul 11 15:11:11 2001  -   5 01:16:26 - 2.4.6-3mdk
> 12: Mon Sep  3 21:34:47 2001  -   0 01:09:02 - 2.4.9 <<--

I give up, what does this mean?

ka

Re: [Pythoncard-users] component object model

[Ron J. <ron...@ho...>]

On Monday 03 September 2001 11:01 pm, Kevin Altis wrote:
> > From: Ron Johnson
> >
> > On Monday 03 September 2001 10:41 pm, Steven D. Arnold wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Has any thought been given to a possible object component model?=20
> > > It
[snip]

Gnome & KDE are the competing Unix/Linux desktops, and they each
have their own component object models.  Each is, of course, in-
compatable with MS COM.

--=20
Mon Sep  3 23:07:39 2001
Seq.  Timestamp                    Uptime
----  ------------------------    ------------
 1: Mon Jul 16 16:28:17 2001  -  43 07:21:59 - 2.4.6-3mdk
 2: Thu May 17 01:44:04 2001  -  35 15:31:51 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 3: Thu Jun 21 17:33:18 2001  -  10 05:29:02 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 4: Sun Jul  1 23:03:05 2001  -   7 10:13:18 - 2.4.3-20mdk
 5: Wed Jul 11 15:11:11 2001  -   5 01:16:26 - 2.4.6-3mdk
11: Mon Sep  3 21:34:47 2001  -   0 01:32:52 - 2.4.9 <<--

RE: [Pythoncard-users] component object model

[Kevin A. <al...@se...>]

> From: Steven D. Arnold
>
> Has any thought been given to a possible object component model?  It
> seems we'd want to use one that was non-proprietary and open-source.
> The KOM/Kparts model seems nice, from what I've read.  The only thing
> I might object to is, if it used Qt and that couldn't be easily
> removed, I wouldn't want to get into a situation where one couldn't
> build a PythonCard app without paying TrollTech.
>
> Another option is the GNOME object model.  I don't know much about
> that, other than that it exists.

I know less than you about GNOME or KOM/Kparts. If your talking about
something like COM, so that we can have plug in components for PythonCard,
then about the only discussion we've had was about XPCOM. I can't get to
ASPN right now, so I can't point you to the Python XPCOM mailing list. I'm
hoping that will be a good system to piggyback on.

I think that it is unlikely we will use any Qt stuff. Does anything outside
of COM on Windows actually have many components available today? One thing
that makes COM slightly less important for us than say Visual Basic apps is
that it should be relatively easy to write custom widgets using Python and
possibly wrapping existing widgets to make compound widgets. That is an
experiment someone should try fairly soon.

ka