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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: dcop interfaces, standard ?
From:       Simon Hausmann <shaus () helios ! Med ! Uni-Magdeburg ! DE>
Date:       1999-12-08 16:35:27
[Download RAW message or body]



On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Bernd Gehrmann wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > > > > And btw (and offtopic), even for embedding I don't see why this should
> > > > > necessarily be restricted to shared libraries. It should be possible
> > > > > to write a proxy KPart which communicates with another application via
> > > > > DCOP and embeds its window via the QXEmbed protocol.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not only about embedding an X11 window, that's no deal, yeah. The
> > > > point about using shared libraries is that you can use the Qt action
> > > > pattern.
> > > 
> > > Then this further rules out KParts for me. And furthermore, it
> > > would be real license mess. I'm not going to put my programs
> > > under the GPL just because some freaks use such viral licenses.
> > 
> > Sorry, but I don't get your point. (please help :)
> > 
> > What's wrong with using shared libraries, also in regard to the
> > (excellent) Qt action pattern? 
> 
> It's a step back to the old days of DOS. Unix provides the
> ability to protect processes from each other, and every
> reasonable person makes use of this. Windows programmers
> have waited long for this feature, and its lack of memory
> protection is the greatest weakness of MacOS.

Protecting processes from each other doesn't help to solve the problem of
embedding. Just in contrary. As the old KOffice showed: Separating
components in processes, for embedding, is less stable.
(and DCOP wouldn't help here, as it's a general problem of distributed
environments IMHO)


Ciao,
 Simon

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