Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background]

On Tue, 2003-03-04, Zack Rusin wrote:
> we are simply not going to adopt core GNOME technologies to KDE to
> achieve that (in the same way that you're unwilling to do the
> opposite)

First point. If D-BUS could work over CORBA, then not using it could be
termed oversight. If D-BUS could work over 2 existing mechanisms, CORBA
_or_ DCOP, then why are you (D-BUS developers) rewriting everything
instead of reusing existing code?

Might it be worthwhile if someone who understands these 2 beasts wrote a
technical comparison, why they aren't suitable for D-BUS, and why a new
protocol and code have to be developed?

Second point. Using CORBA doesn't mean KDE has to adopt any GNOME code
(although even that seems a strange aversion). AFAICT, any C++ bound ORB
will do. Again, reusing existing code.

A question. Can D-BUS itself be proxied over other IPC mechanisms? How
complex would it be to "bind" a CORBA interface to D-BUS? That way, if
people are bent on writing a new protocol, languages can still take
advantage of D-BUS without needing specific bindings (they can use any
available ORB to talk to it). This assumes of course that D-BUS and
CORBA are functionally similar (see point 1).

Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]