why share implementation? (Re: GLib debate)
staikos at kde.org
Tue Jul 22 03:38:23 EEST 2003
On Monday 21 July 2003 19:06, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> To pick one of the more ambitious efforts proposed so far, for D-BUS
> we have both a protocol spec and code. The code is designed to be
> maximally general (no GLib, handles out of memory cases, plain C,
> etc.), but at the same time if you wanted a specialized embedded or
> pure Java or whatever implementation, you should be able to write one
> using the spec.
I agree entirely. This is the effort I'm most familiar with, and it looks
to be headed in the right direction. I don't think any desktop has really
"signed on" to the idea of d-bus yet, but if it's done *right*, I think it
stands a better chance. Sharing code here is very beneficial.
> I don't think we're likely to have time to implement a message bus or
> IPC system twice over, following the same spec, so the shared
> implementation is pretty practical for now. With the planned GLib/Qt
> wrappers, everyone should see a nice API for their environment.
Exactly what I was trying to communicate!
> Anyway, I think the decision here is basically case-by-case and
> app-by-app. I believe we should have the option to do whatever
> combination of specs and code makes sense each time.
Of course. Another, perhaps much larger fish to tackle is the sound
server. It seems like there are half a dozen now, and people have complaints
about all of them. Writing two sound servers doesn't make sense. Writing
two client interfaces is probably a necessity. Hopefully one of the servers
already out there will mature and become something favorable for use by
KDE Developer http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc. http://www.staikos.net/
More information about the xdg