Michael Meeks wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 15:55 +0800, Li Yuan wrote: > >>> Quite - me neither ;-) OTOH, it's a hard issue to fix: and >>> precedent-wise, MSAA, IAcc2, UIA, UNO a11y and atk use reference >>> counting :-) >>> >> Not sure if I understand this correctly. You are talking about the >> possibility for object lifecycle management in D-Bus, right? Then could >> we implement the Bonobo_Unknown interface in at-spi to handle the >> lifecycle problem? >> > > Yes; easily - but explicit lifecycle management is a total nightmare > for performance, efficiency, etc. > > Hi Li, Michael; :-)
I agree with Michael here, if we can figure out a way to get rid of the cross-process lifecycle management (maybe client-side stubs that 'die' gracefully, or something similar?) then it would be a good thing. Perhaps the current changes are the right time to introduce such a change, since other behavioral things would be sure to change too. Bill > Regards, > > Michael. > > _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
