[Accessibility] FSGA Teleconference Agenda, Wednesday 28 June

Olaf Jan Schmidt ojschmidt at kde.org
Sun Jul 2 13:23:50 PDT 2006

[ Bill Haneman ]
> I think we can do better than just giving up on conformance testing for
> the time being.

I was not suggesting to give up conformance testing. I was suggesting to keep 
the AT-SPI conformance tests separate from the LSB until we have a solution 
that works with both Qt and Gtk. The reason I insist on this that we are 
missing a common main loop for both Gtk and Qt.

Haarld told me that the construction of the glib main does not allow a full 
merge with the Qt main loop, which makes it impossible to link to atk or 
ORBit2 from Qt applications. And no other suitable ORB for C++ exists, which 
means that without major changes in the glib main loop, it is impossible to 
use CORBA from Qt/KDE applications. Given these problems, I am currently not 
aware of any viable alternative to a quick switch to DBUS.

> Unless I am misunderstanding you, your suggestion would ensconce cspi
> and perhaps later the pyton bindings, "QSpi", etc. as additional
> requirements in LSB.  That seems to me to be more restrictive to distros
> and to our efforts than a roadmap that allows us to migrate backends
> later while not tying us to a C api that we don't particularly like,
> just because it's convenient.

I don't insist on standardising cspi. I am only saying that if we include an 
ABI in the LSB, then it needs to equally suitable to both CORBA and DBUS.

If there is no ABI that we are comfortable with, then we should not rush 
anything into the LSB. We can still publish the AT-SPI conformance tests 

But maybe I am missing something. How do you suggest to make the switch to 
DBUS if we add a CORBA OMG-generated ABI to the LSB?


Olaf Jan Schmidt, KDE Accessibility co-maintainer, open standards 
accessibility networker, Protestant theology student and webmaster of 
http://accessibility.kde.org/ and http://www.amen-online.de/

More information about the Accessibility mailing list