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

[Aurélien Gâteau]

Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Thursday 25 of June 2009, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>  Which incidentally would be a very nice outcome of this all, eventually. A 
> good reason not to block the name.

I agree it would be nice, but it represents a much more important amount
of work. It is not incompatible with evolving the existing spec to fit
KDE needs.

>>>> 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.
> 
>  I take that back, it's actually quite a good analogy:
> - in both cases, things may break if reserved symbols are used by something 
> that should not use them
> - in both cases, there are technical means to do the rename while keeping 
> backwards compatibility
> - in both cases, things often break more often than once in 5 years anyway

True. One can also add that in both cases, breaking compatibility when
there is a backward-compatible way to fix the problem is not good.

>  To save us from more work, of course. If this was done properly in the first 
> place, we wouldn't need this discussion now. If you want to know some of the 
> reasons in more detail, please just see this thread.

Don't worry, I am reading this thread with great attention.

Aurélien