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

[Aurélien Gâteau]

Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> I see nothing wrong having the KDE implementation showing notifications
>> as Plasma bubbles, while another implementation instead logs them to a
>> file or plays them back with a text-to-speech engine.
> 
>  I do. I see it as wrong that I would not be able to tell the KDE 
> implementation that I'm not interested in any bubbles from FooApp that 
> happens to annoy me with them all the time. I myself would even see it as 
> wrong not to be able to use bubbles for some events and some other way of 
> notifying for other events. All the stuff it's been always quite easy to do 
> with KNotify and next to impossible with Galago. It's really rather sad to 
> see all this discussion about a spec which is younger, inferior and less 
> flexible and its only advantage is that its developers simply bluntly took 
> the freedesktop.org name :(. That alone should be a good reason to rename it, 
> just so that this doesn't repeat again.

Note that turning org.kde.VisualNotifications into
org.freedesktop.VisualNotifications won't help you configure the way
notifications are presented.
To get to configure how notifications are shown through KNotify, you
would need to make KNotify internal DBus interface the new spec.

At least the bubbles would integrate better into your desktop if we make
KDE adopt o.fd.Notifications. And you can (and should) complain to
FooApp developer for spamming you with useless notifications.

> 
>>> It is not a big deal.  Modifications need to be done anyways, and
>>> changing the name is one line of code of change.
>> Suppose you are using a library which provides a class named Foo. This
>> library has been in use for 5 years, but you think the class really
>> should have been named FooBar. Would you ask the library maintainers to
>> break binary compatibility to get the class renamed?
> 
>  This is such a bad analogy in practice that I even don't know where to start.

Care to explain why class <=> DBus interface is a bad analogy? Both
provides an API you can call, both have backward-compatibility concerns.

>> KDE developers use the KNotification class, other developers use
>> libnotify. They don't care about the DBus name. Why change just for the
>> sake of change, especially since not all parties consider this change to
>> go in the right direction?
> 
>  If they don't care about the name, the question then should be 'Why do we 
> need this discussion at all?'.

Or maybe it should be "Why do some of you want to change it and create
more work for themselves and for others?"

Aurélien