Daemon or no daemon

[Jamie McCracken]

Avery Pennarun wrote:

> 
> But the main reason *not* to do this is that a common system across desktops
> - D-VFS or DConf or whatever - will have an entirely different frontend
> library.  KDE people like C++, Gnome people like C.  The nice thing about
> using a daemon with DBUS is that it's very easy to write and rewrite your
> frontend API for whatever your favourite language might be.  Problems like
> common event loops and threads just disappear.

I would advise having a platform neutral interface (ie no glib) on the 
client end which all platforms can use at a low level (they can of 
course make a high level wrapper for better integration on top of this 
lib). That way If KDE really really dont like the client/daemon they can 
write their own using dcop/qt and everyone can still have a universal 
way to store prefs :)


> 
> I disagree completely with Sean's assertion that it's not possible to do
> some of the things D-VFS wants to do - other than cross-process caching -
> without a daemon.  On the other hand, a daemon is just the sensible way of
> doing it for several other reasons, so at least his conclusion is right.

As you're better off using POSIX for file:// uris instead of a 
vfs/daemon then yes it does make sense for all non-posix uris to use a 
daemon. A high level wrapper can easily be applied to both posix and 
d-vfs at a later stage to accomplish this transparently.

jamie.

> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Avery
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
> 
>