[g-a-devel] [Accessibility] a11y / D-Bus / lifecycle ...
rob.taylor at codethink.co.uk
Tue Dec 18 04:22:09 PST 2007
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.
And for the impossibly hard problems that occur when you get it wrong!
I think we can do *relatively* safe cross-process refcounting with dbus,
but it is going to be pretty heavy - keeping a per-process (actually per
bus-name), per-object reference count in each process and keeping one
reference per bus name on the actual object.
So, i guess if we do this we need to basically have a general rule of
keeping cross-process refcounting down to a minimum and keep refcounting
of the object proxies and remote object refcounting sepeate.
I've just taken a quick look at cspi to see what's done there today, and
it seems to have some relatively complex ideas of 'loaning' references.
Can someone explain what's going on here?
Rob Taylor, Codethink Ltd. - http://codethink.co.uk
More information about the Accessibility