From kde-core-devel  Wed Sep 29 16:04:15 2004
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira () kdemail ! net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:04:15 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: RFC: DBUS & KDE 4
Message-Id: <200409291304.15977.thiago.macieira () kdemail ! net>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109647388800838
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart1515398.vc3jjX9IM0"

--nextPart1515398.vc3jjX9IM0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
>Against DBUS:
>a) More glib (someone please get these guys the Thinking in C++ book)

I don't think this point is an issue. The wire format for D-BUS is defined.=
=20
So we can write our own libkdbus library if we so wish, with C++ bindings.

It would be necessary to have a library anyways if my idea of a DCOP alias=
=20
inside D-BUS is to be followed.

>b) No-one has really adopted it yet.  I think HAL uses it to a limited
>extent, and maybe gconf is maybe moving to it?  It all looks like someone
>is waiting for someone else to bite.  This didn't turn out so well with
>DCOP or arts.

That someone else would be us. Putting the KDE weight behind it could give=
=20
the momentum it needs. DCOP and MCOP are largely KDE-exclusive.

>For DCOP:
>c) Bindings

That doesn't have to go away.

=2D-=20
  Thiago Macieira  -  Registered Linux user #65028
   thiago (AT) macieira (DOT) info
    ICQ UIN: 1967141   PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358

--nextPart1515398.vc3jjX9IM0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBBWtz/M/XwBW70U1gRAvrAAKCYKS/s4xGdIs+QXROxlMPrxAbtywCgt/kL
oNFQjrQtNlk1ZZem9bwMoTw=
=/PBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1515398.vc3jjX9IM0--