[Accessibility] Fwd: X11 libraries requested for future LSB spec

Michael Meeks michael at ximian.com
Fri Jun 23 01:52:35 PDT 2006

On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 00:31 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> By 'CORBA details', I meant the detail of using CORBA at all.  The A11Y
> framework is one of the last users of CORBA on the desktop, and there
> has been interest in moving AT-SPI to a more maintainable technology
> like D-Bus in the past.  

	I share your concern wrt. standardising on a API that is also the IPC

	OTOH - the bindings are rather nice. I wonder: wrt. ORCA ( and IBM's
python thing ) - whether we couldn't create a couple of python libraries
that abstracted away the more 'bonoboy/CORBA-y' pieces here by wrapping
them - and yet expose the same CORBA / python objects, with exactly the
same interfaces as at present (derived from the IDL).

	That'd also have the nice effect of de-coupling the at-spi-registryd
activation piece from libbonobo, and allowing that to be re-worked
[ using the new per-display hint ? in future ]. Also allowing us to
change the implementation rather easily later [ although IMHO d-bus is
prolly still not mature enough for this yet ].

	Of course - wrt. Python API/ABI issues are mostly a matter of the
meaning of strings :-) and as long as we hide all of those 'CORBA' /
'Bonobo' strings that make some foam at the mouth ;-) they need never
know - and it can be fixed later.

	ie. I tend to agree that standardising cspi / a tiny python-spi wrapper
is (perhaps) a good way to go.

	Clearly though - jrb - in terms of actually producing a real standard,
having an existing well accepted standard (OMG IDL) to define the
interfaces in is extraordinarily attractive, vs. the fairly hacked up
cspi interface.

	Then again - the way things are going, perhaps an IDL derived
python-only API definition would be adequate for most AT vendors.



 michael.meeks at novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

More information about the Accessibility mailing list