On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 16:37 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:13 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > I wrote a little proposal about this at > > http://rodrigo.gnome-db.org/news.php?8/November/2004 > > > > Is anyone interested on having this? > > Yep. > > In fact I think we should go further: replace session management with > desktop extensions. Apps are one kind of extension. There's a flag in > gconf for whether to start each extension (or a list in gconf of > extensions to start). This all sounds very reasonable to me, as long as we aren't talking about putting applications and services in some mega-daemon process. So how does this map to D-BUS activation and services? You mentioned you thought everything should be lifecycle-managed by D-BUS, which makes sense to me. But is it just assumed that desktop extensions will connect to the session bus and acquire some service? Should desktop extensions install D-BUS service files? If so, what happens if it's not in the GConf list, but another application wants to activate it?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part