Kameda-san,
I see that the big desktop programs (GNOME / KDE, Firefox,
OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird) have an interoperability problem.
They all bring their own infrastructure (system abstraction, component
model, scripting language, VFS, font management, widget set, XML parser
/ emitter, 2D / 3D engines, standard dialogs, configuration, APIs, etc.)
while they basically only differ in their application(s).
Because of this, it is basically hard to create an integrating solution
using this or that from these or other applications. On Windows you may
use COM or .Net which more or less is available for most applications
(even OOo ;-), as well as being supported by all kinds of companies
developing components for various purposes. IMHO, this is a strength of
Windows.
If I understand you correctly, you are proposing a new
protocol/component model to be used to mediate between the established
ones, using "protocol converters" to achieve interoperability.
Actually, OpenOffice.org's component model (Uno) was originally
envisioned to be exactly this, using so called "bridges" to mediate
between different languages, component models and protocols. This has
been achieved to some extent, e.g. there are bridges for Uno/RPC, Java,
OOo BASIC, Windows COM, C, various C++ ABIs, CLI (.Net), Python and even
experimental ones for Perl, TCL and XPCOM (there even was a very
experimental one for web services :-). That actually means, that you
could use Windows VBA on a Windows box to call on XPCOM objects being
instantiated on a Linux system.
Unfortunately there is not only a lack of an "interoperable ABI" (the
mediator between the programs component models), but also a lack of
"shared" interfaces. It is quite unlikely, that you find any reasonable
Uno object in OOo which may be syntactically compatible (has a
compatible interface) to be passed e.g. to an XPCOM object, and even if
there is a syntactically compatible one, than it is likely semantically
incompatible.
This does not mean, that the interoperability problem is unsolvable, it
is "just" a huge amount of work.
Regards
Kay
Daisuke Kameda wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Daisuke Kameda is wrote:
>> We have released "Common Desktop Infrastructure" 0.1.0 under LGPL version3.
>> http://www.smg.co.jp/opensource/CommonDesktopInfrastructure/
>> http://www.smg.co.jp/opensource/CommonDesktopInfrastructure/products/commondesktop-0.1.0.tar.gz
>
> I have made the presentation material about the vision of Common
> Desktop Infrastructure. And I have made the architecture design
> document.
>
> I want Portland project to adopt this infrastructure in the future
> version of DAPI.
>
> I want to also discuss about the specification of GNOME, KDE/Qt,
> Mozilla, OpenOffice, and D-BUS, because I notice that there is
> the obstacles to mutual conversion of the protocols.
>
> I are waiting for any questions, any opinions, and any proposals.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Desktop_architects mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
_______________________________________________
Desktop_architects mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
