[Portland] In process? Out of process? And more...

[nf2]

Hi!

George Staikos wrote:

>
>
>   I think this is only part of the answer.  Here is how I see it:
>
>We need to define a protocol in the abstract sense.  We can provide a sample 
>implementation in plain C with no dependencies to prove that it is generic 
>and usable for any type of application.  We can provide implementations in Qt 
>and GTK+ to show that it works well with existing applications on the 
>desktops.  And we make the implementation a completely separate aspect from 
>the protocol.  This way, we are free to implement any one or more of many 
>mechanisms for accessing the desktop.  We can do a RUDI-style IPC based 
>system, a user-space runtime tool system (external executable), or native 
>linking.
>
>  
>
I think that's a very good solution.

But there is one thing you *must* have for a C-API approach: The common 
main loop.

Cheers,
Norbert