Thiago Macieira said:
> 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.
> So we can write our own libkdbus library if we so wish, with C++ bindings.
>
Technically you can do the same thing with DCOP, but its not pretty.  The
wireformat though being open and documented is a plus.

> It would be necessary to have a library anyways if my idea of a DCOP alias
> 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
> the momentum it needs. DCOP and MCOP are largely KDE-exclusive.
>
But there where C only bindings for both.  MPlayer and Xine both have arts
backends. I am not sure if they use Qt at all though, I just know that
they will use arts if its running.

Personally I think the kernel guys adopting this will make this all a
reality, so this will become less of an issue as time goes on.  IMHO its
something to be aware of.

>>For DCOP:
>>c) Bindings
>
> That doesn't have to go away.
Ideally if the API stays the same its not a horrible issue.  But its still
an issue that needs to be addressed.

Cheers
   -ian reinhart geiser

-- 
--
+-Ian Reinhart Geiser geiseri@sourcextreme.com
+-Vice President of Engineering
+-http://www.sourcextreme.com
+-It's not that we don't make mistakes, we just don't keep them around.