An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

Waldo Bastian bastian at
Tue Apr 12 14:15:09 EEST 2005

On Tuesday 12 April 2005 12:16, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 23:23 +0100, Richard Moore wrote:
> > > So it seems likely that D-BUS will be acceptable to everyone, while
> > > there are a few reasons why DCOP might not be.
> >
> > IIRC DBUS currently lacks some of the features of DCOP. That said, maybe
> > it will.
> Which ones? The one great feature that D-Conf will need of DCOP
> (signals) is also available in D-BUS.
> I know about transactions (DCOP has DCOPClientTransaction) 

Transactions are supported by the DBUS protocol, it's up to the binding to 
expose it to the application.

> and an IDL compiler (DCOP has dcopidl).
> The IDL compiler would be useful for D-Conf. There's a few people
> working on an IDL compiler for D-BUS. I'm confident that by the time
> development of D-Conf starts, this IDL-compiler will be ready.
> However, I fail to see how the transactions are a requirement.

It allows asynchronous processing of requests which tends to be handy in 
service providers such as a DConf daemon.

> And given the fact that D-Conf shouldn't be an X11-only technology, and
> DCOP seems to depend on many X11-related libs, D-BUS is a better
> candidate. (but DO correct me about the dependencies of DCOP if I'm
> incorrect here. I don't know whether DCOP can be compiled different than
> on my standard Ubuntu Hoary).

The main dependency is libICE, the rest is pulled in because of Qt. I believe 
Maks Orlovich wrote an implementation with its own ICE implementation. I am 
not sure if it is actually maintained or whether it has been released in some 
way though.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list