[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kwallet and QCA
From:       Thiago Macieira <thiago () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-06-12 11:23:05
Message-ID: 200806121323.06523.thiago () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Thursday 12 June 2008 11:50:15 nf2 wrote:
> Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 June 2008, nf2 wrote:
> >> I think the crunchpoint are those "object models" - which are similar
> >
> > yes. perhaps we can draw the best from both (ACL ideas from
> > libgnome-keyring, data flexibility from kwallet) and come up with
> > something that is better than either alone and move towards that as
> > something that could be used across projects[1]; sort of like what d-bus
> > attempted with IPC.
>
> I think i have read similar statements on xdg several times (DVFS...).
> Unfortunately this "let's start from scratch and create something
> better" approach never worked out. So i'd rather not consider it as an
> option.

The difference between the two cases are so big that it's even hard to see how 
you'd be comparing the two.

In one case, you wanted KDE to replace its entire essential VFS infrastructure 
with a new, unproven, unreleased one, which depended on libraries KDE 
developers don't use/like and used a language that KDE developers don't 
use/like.

On the other case, we're talking about *adding* (not replacing) a standard for 
Inter-Process Communication over a standardised protocol used by KDE and 
GNOME already. Or, alternatively, standardising the file format. And we're 
also talking about an optional service of the desktop (many people don't like 
to have the wallet).

-- 
  Thiago Macieira  -  thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
    PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
    E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]