Proposal and RFC: DAL, the Desktop Abstraction Layer
jamiemcc at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Jan 15 15:50:05 EET 2005
>>There are only 2 use cases that I know of using Dbus:
>>1) You want to communicate with a specific app
> Why would you need any abstraction layer/standard interface if you only
> want to talk to one specific app? In that case you can use a dedicated
> PATH of course. But then you shouldn't have a common standard interface,
> but better an interface specific for that app, exposing as much of its
> functionality as possible, not only functionalities offered by (eg) all
> DAL is right there to be able to speak to *any* app delivering some
> specific services, where you don't have to care whether this app is
> gedit, kwrite or xemacs.
We dont strictly need an abstraction layer. If Dbus does not allow you
to query what interfaces a service supports you cant easily implement an
abstraction layer anyhow. If it does, why do we need an abstraction layer?
For us to accept an abstraction layer we need justification for it. You
need to tell us what advantage it has over using core Dbus. Bear in mind
an abstraction layer is not just extra work for yourself - its also more
work for language bindings.
More information about the xdg