Notification spec issue: Ability to assign an icon *and* an image to a notification

[Jeff Mitchell]

Lubos Lunak wrote:
>  Moreover, it is unnecessary. The specification (meaning something that 
> actually has some consensus) should use whatever is right. But, for backwards 
> compatibility, there shouldn't be a big problem with it also saying something 
> like "In order to support old clients, implementations can also provide the 
> same service under the name org.freedesktop.Notifications. This name is 
> however deprecated and may be replaced in the future with a proper 
> notification system, so all clients are strongly encouraged to use the proper 
> org.freedesktop.VisualNotifications name."

In fact, this is what people wanting to change the (fd.o) HAL spec
already do -- if you want to make an incompatible change, you mark the
old part of the spec as deprecated with an expiration date (1-2 years)
and implement the new interface.  It's been working quite well for the
HAL spec, so I don't see why it couldn't work for the notification spec.

>  It's not a big work either. Servers take another dbus service name and 
> provide the same there, clients check if the proper name is available, if 
> not, they try the deprecated one. Even if the incorrectly taken bus name gets 
> somewhen later used for a proper notification system, it's not going to 
> happen tomorrow, and by the time it happens it probably won't matter much. 
> Not to mention that those old clients are likely to face much worse 
> compatibility problems by that time than just this.

Yes -- it really is pretty easy...

--Jeff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20090625/882ae150/attachment-0001.pgp