For the record, I would be happy to try and remove the few remaining Bonobo API dependencies from AT-SPI (currently we only use three methods, which I believe could easily be removed/wrapped so that the IDL did not pull in Bonobo_Unknown.idl.)
Of course the current libspi.so would continue to use the Bonobo back-end, but the ABI exposed to clients and services would not expose any Bonobo details and thus would be compatible with any non-Bonobo-based implementation. As Samuel points out, this would mean any CORBA ORB would be sufficient. However I believe this whole concern is based on a misunderstanding of AT-SPI's "bonobo dependency". The gnome-java-bridge for Java applications currently speaks AT-SPI via CORBA using the built-in Java ORB. It doesn't link to ORBit2 or libbonobo, etc., it just provides its own trivial implementations for BonoboUnknown (it's only about three methods, after all). This means that the "Bonobo Dependency" in AT-SPI is not a real dependency on anything but the three CORBA methods in Bonobo_Unknown.idl. > But less than using ORBit (and bare with bonobo dependency), right? That > might meet everyone's need: keep at-spi in a CORBA protocol, so that > gnome and Qt accessibility work together, but avoid ORBit dependencies. As I point out above, this is already the case - AT-SPI doesn't depend on any bonobo ABI other than the trivial Bonobo_Unknown.idl, which is already "pure CORBA". I know of only one place in libspi.so where we actually call ORBit-specific API (and I am looking for an alternative to that line of code, because of issues just like this - we don't want to be tied to a specific ORB). > > It would also be no solution for the libbonobo dependency. I don't believe there is a libbonobo dependency, except as an implementation detail of the existing libspi.so. So: for KDE applications serving up accessibility information, writing to ATK (assuming the glib main loop problem is resolved) would suffice. For the short-to-medium term the app could then LD_PRELOAD the existing atk-bridge, without caring about the implementation details, and it would work with orca, gok, and gnopernicus. For KDE accessibility utilities or KDE assistive technologies, you could use C++ CORBA bindings (which are lots nicer than the C bindings), and your choice of ORB. regards, Bill > I don't understand this. Doesn't Qt using another CORBA implementation > would let it be free from bonobo? > > Samuel > _______________________________________________ > Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
