Qt/GObject: who cares? (was: Re: Conclusions and a compact list of requirements for deconf-spec)
chris at gnome-de.org
Sat Dec 10 17:06:40 EET 2005
On Sa, 2005-12-10 at 14:53 +0000, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > Today somebody asked an interesting question about it (in private) and
> > the recently started Portland project is also a good reason why to
> > repeat some stuff.
> Its cool you are still perservering with this.
> A few thoughts - is it the schema thats holding up consensus?
> As a developer, I would apreciate needing minimal effort to implement
> schemae (ie they should be concise and involve minimal typing). It would
> help if you could show if this is the case with your proposal as Im sure
> a lot of developers will give it the thumbs up if so.
> The API looks good and usable. So I take it the plan is for each desktop
> to implement its own daemon and config library which meets that spec.
> Im not sure where deconf fits into this? Are you still planning to
> create a desktop neutral daemon which would be very hard and time
> consuming with all the abstractions (threads, modules, mainloop et al)?
I don't think this is important at all. After all, we've never been
enemies and everybody feels nice with a working solution. We'll see
GStreamer adoption of KDE, and I feel perfectly fine with using Qt
software as a daemon, taken that beginning with Qt4, there is also
available a non-GUI library QtCore .
Whatever technology is picked to write the first usable daemon should be
If people still feel like using two daemons, we could at least merge the
Christian Neumair <chris at gnome-de.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20051210/b1011318/attachment.pgp
More information about the xdg