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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: CORBA on kde-core-devel
From:       "Michael J. Bedy" <mjbedy () mtu ! edu>
Date:       1999-09-17 17:33:42
[Download RAW message or body]


  I agree that startup is rather slow, but once it is running it seems
fast enough. At least konquere (sp?) is plenty fast. It's been awhile
since I tried Koffice, so maybe that is slower.

  The biggest advantage that I see from the current CORBA method of doing
things is the increased flexibility of having multiple event loops (at
least as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong). I am afraid that
loosing this flexibility would be a major negative. If a method can be
found to keep the multiple event loops, but reduce the overhead, then I
could see that.

  A modern desktop environment is going to take quite a bit of computing
resource. This is a fact that people need to understand. It is certainly
in our best interest to reduce this resource need as much as possible, but
not at the expense of the functionality required by a modern desktop
system. Since KDE strives to be such a system, and I believe this is the
right way to go, we have to understand two key points:

  1) As I just said, a modern desktop requires significant computing
resources. Keep in mind that computing resources will contiune to become
more plentiful and cheaper.

  2) We (well, not much by me yet, but that should change in the near
future) are designing the system right now. We want it to have the
features that a modern desktop system has, and these include the types of
things that CORBA allows us to do. I guess this really is kind of point
1b.

  I just don't want to see KDE burdened in the future by unnecessaryily
limiting decisions in the past. It would be nice if a bit of backward
compatability were mantained from KDE2 on, and the more flexible the
system now, the easier I think it will be to mantain that.

   - Mike


On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Reginald Stadlbauer wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Michael J. Bedy wrote:
> >I would like to lend my support to keeping the seperate process model
> >that is used now. Quite simply, it's the more stable approach, as well as
> >the most flexable.
> >
> >  I've got a three year old computer, and it seems fast enough for me.
> >Beyond the point of speed, I'm not sure what other arguments are to be
> >made against the current approach.
> 
> That's really not true. The current way is very slow and needs too much memory!
> 
> -- 
> Reggie
> 

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