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

[Ikke]

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 10:36 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 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.  ;-)
> 

Quoting from http://live.gnome.org/GnomeLove:

Write a new Screensaver app: Only for brave hackers. It should use the
xscreensaver hacks, but the core app should be a new gnome app

:)