Draft "StatusNotifierIcon" broken by design

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On May 19, 2010, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> 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.

Which case is this? (You seem to have it clear in mind, and I'd prefer to save 
the time wading through months of email archives to find it.)

> at the very least, the spec should go into *lots* of detail about
> activating the fallback under untypical conditions.

If there are details missing for you, please let us know what they are, either 
by asking concrete questions that we can provide answers to in the spec or 
with example text that provides the answers directly.

> > 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.

Agreed.

> i for one would prefer solving the fundamental problem before building
> upon it.

Unfortunately, that would likely mean never building on it. I find that 
fundamental problems that don't get sorted after years of waiting around only 
tend to get addressed once we start using the technology in question 
extensively, which brings people to work on it because they now have a good 
reason to. If we all just wait around, nothing happens, nothing gets done, and 
our platform stagnates. Not good.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20100519/2fbe3359/attachment.pgp>