Re: GUnique [Was: gnome-utils branched for GNOME 2.16]

(Crap, *sends to list this time round*)

On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 23:28 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Dom, 2006-09-24 �16:57 +0100, Alex Jones escreveu:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 09:43 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > > GUnique already uses D-Bus (with bacon as a backup). So, how is your
> > proposal different than GUnique?  (Other than startup-notification not
> > being mentioned in your proposal yet?)
> > It's different because it separates the process starts the service from
> the process that invokes methods on the service (i.e. LaunchNew(),
> OpenURI(), etc.).

  I completely agree that separating the "client interface" from the
main app is beneficial.  Witness Rhythmbox that recently started
shipping a lightweight rhythmbox-client program that allows one to
control RB without loading a very large binary in the process.  Now I
can bind my multimedia keys to control RB without having to wait a few
seconds before pressing a key takes effect.

This is exactly the situation BMPx is in, too.

It has pretty cool effects for, say, file managers, too. Consider that
gnomevfs.show_uri had the support to read a D-Bus bus-name and object
path from a .desktop file for an application, and instead of launching a
new process simply invoke the OpenURI method on the relevant interface.
Opening files just got 10 times quicker. (Try benchmarking, it really is
that much more efficient for me with Epiphany.)

> It also gives us the ability to pre-load applications without showing
> any interface. I am totally willing to spare a chunk of my RAM if it
> means I don't have to keep warm-starting Epiphany every time I open a
> web page. It would make my entire desktop use a whole lot more
> responsive.


Alex Jones <alex weej com>

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