[patch] small fixes

[David Zeuthen]

On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 18:38 -0400, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 13:27 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 12:34 -0400, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > > Looks good to me.
> > 
> > I've committed the patch.
> > 
> > >   What about the patch that allows new keys so your
> > > patch doesn't break 1.0 if we want to backport later?
> > 
> > I can do that. How do we want it to look? How about just denying
> > activation requests if the User key is set?
> 
> Really I would have liked a namespaced parser (so we could detect errors
> in a conf file at the same time allowing extensions) 

I'm not really sure what that means...

> but in any case why
> would you deny activation requests is the User key is set?

Because I want to mark it as reserved for future use as it will have
meaning in 1.2 but will have zero meaning in 1.0. 

>  I think the
> idea is to just accept any key (perhaps giving a non-fatal warning for
> unknown keys).

Sure, that's the "Be liberal in what you accept" mantra (to which I
think we all subscribe), however if we don't reserve the "User" key then
some 3rd party might use it for something and then things will break for
them in 1.2.

I also think another idea is to enable people to use the same file for
both a desktop file and a service, e.g. you could have both [Desktop
Entry] and [D-BUS Service] in it. Not sure how useful that is though.

Perhaps the right thing is to ensure only "Name" and "Exec" is set under
[D-Bus Service] and refuse to activate if that is not the case. Then
we'll just add "User" for 1.1/1.2 and "SomeOtherKey" in later releases
etc. etc.

Or maybe we don't need to do anything; if people abuse the .service
files to put other meta data under the [D-Bus Service] section perhaps
they deserve to lose as that's a pretty bad idea unless they prefix it
with e.g. X-GNOME-blah or whatever.

     David