Proposal and RFC: Introducing DAL, the "Desktop Abstraction Layer"

Sean Middleditch elanthis at
Thu Jan 13 17:36:30 EET 2005

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 16:04 +0100, Ikke wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 10:00 -0500, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > Why the extra level of indirection?  D-BUS is there to be a secure cross
> > platform communications channel.  There is really no reason to abstract
> > it.  If people have political objections to D-BUS then you have already
> > lost the desktop integration wars.  D-BUS should not be feared.  It
> > should be the center of any strategy to integrate the desktop and that
> > message should be clear to all application developers.  Over engineering
> > a solution will cause more problems than it solves and just cause
> > confusion.  This is exactly what D-BUS was created to do; make Desktop
> > integration a piece of cake and do it across desktop platforms.  Having
> > a spec of interfaces that everyone agrees on, while not as glamorous as
> > writing code, would go a lot further in getting the desktop integrated.
> > 
> > --
> > J5
> Tell him...

If someone refuses something as light-weight and desktop-neutral as D-
BUS, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they're going to
accept any *other* desktop integration library.  If an application
developer refuses to integrate with the Free Desktop platform then
there's nothing we can do except to push for a replacement that is
friendlier to the desktop and its users.  Certainly something the Free
Desktop group has seen happen before with a project or two.  ;-)

> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at

More information about the xdg mailing list