[Portland] Project Portland, RuDI and the Generic desktop adapter

[nf2]

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

>that said, your approach does require AFAICS unifying the event loops. which 
>cuts out any and all apps that aren't written to those toolkits that adopt 
>that event loop. this means for most apps that the authors will have to port 
>to a newer version of their toolkit before taking advantage of such an 
>approach which in turn often has a fairly significant cost for them.
>  
>
Qt3, Gtk+ 2.0 and Xt. I would assume they could all be ported to a 
shared main loop without breaking API's.

>the IPC approach also works better with apps being run remotely on a different 
>machine than the desktop is, but that's perhaps a corner case these days.
>
>as for ABI stability, saying that it isn't a problem because we already link 
>to .so's is like saying that complaining about the flu is silly because 
>you've had flus in the past. the idea is to avoid past problems, not find 
>creative new ways to repeat them. ISVs are highly allergic to ABI stability 
>issues, which is why many use as FEW libs as possible, statically link when 
>possible and often even ship their own versions of the .so/dll when that 
>fails.
>
>  
>
>
I just said that because i thought problems should be fixed at the 
lowest possible layer. Bypassing them with daemons and IPC looks a bit 
like an overkill and should only be the last choice.

Cheers,

Norbert