Draft "StatusNotifierIcon" broken by design
ossi at kde.org
Wed May 19 10:57:53 PDT 2010
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 09:42:30AM -0700, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On May 19, 2010, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > great prospects for those who actually try to take adavantage of x's
> > inherent networking transparency (the price of which one has to pay
> > anyway): crap notifier items or no notifier items. wow. that's progress.
> Given that "crap notifier items" are the status quo which nobody had bothered
> to do anything to (e.g. improve) for years (even after I first noted their
> flaws to the people involved ~6 years ago), it's not a regression. At the very
> least we've improved the (in practice overwhelmingly) common case
yes. the problem is that the spec simply does not consider the cases
outlined by wolfgang and me. in at least one of them, the fallback won't
be activated, because the d-bus method will *appear* to be available.
havoc will ensue.
at the very least, the spec should go into *lots* of detail about
activating the fallback under untypical conditions.
> The reality, however, is that what you point out won't affect only
> notifier items, but all communication done over DBus.
yes. but from that you can subtract the cases which shouldn't have been
done via d-bus in the first place (thinking about the screensaver spec
> It's a more general problem that will only be addressed by making it
> easy (as in "transparent") to route DBus over the same network that
> the X session is on.
yes, and it's a hard problem. questions of session, seat, host and
display relation need to be answered, let alone actually implementing
i for one would prefer solving the fundamental problem before building
but then, maybe the 99%-solutions are good enough - apparently there are
acceptable (even if somewhat inferior) alternatives to the outright
broken scenarios, as no-one cared to really address the mess with
More information about the xdg