Proposal and RFC: DAL, the Desktop Abstraction Layer

[Havoc Pennington]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 16:03 +0000, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > You should get a list of all services that export a particular interface
> > and then activate the service you want.  We should fix D-Bus if it
> > doesn't do what we want or create another daemon that keeps track of
> > these things.  A spec which aims to be a standard should not try and
> > workaround deficiencies.
> 
> Thats what I asked for earlier in this thread but Havoc is reluctant to 
> implement that and not wishing to upset Havoc I accepted the compromise 
> of multiple services for that.
> 
> I agree its much better to use interfaces here than services after all 
> an interface is an agreed well defined contract so it seems pointless to 
> make a service a well defined contract too in those cases. I should also 
> add that only public (pre-defined) interfaces should be exported as you 
> suggested (theres obviously no point asking for a propriety interface).

As soon as someone explains how an application (rather than an object
instance) can implement an interface, then I'm happy to listen.

In the meantime you are suggesting the equivalent of this function:

 bool process_implements_gtk_editable (pid_t process_id);

If you can explain how that makes any sense *at all* then I'm all ears.
Processes are not editable text fields.

Havoc